^K/r  /^^-r' 


V-^  ^  s 


~-^.-«<„A.AM_-/l— v^ 


rtte  Old  Corner  Book 
Store,  Inc. 


IRELAND 


BY  THi  5AME  AUTHOR: 

HORIZONS 

A  BOOK  OF  CRITICISM 


IRELAND 

A  STUDY  IN  NATIONALISM 
By  FRANCIS  HACKETT 


REVISED   EDITION 
BObTON  0OLL16GK  UBRART 


NEW  YORK 

B.  W.  HUEBSCH 

MCMXVIII 


COPYRIGHT  1918  BY  B.  W.   HUEBSCH 
PniNTED  IN  U.   S.   A. 


Pablisbed  Aogusi,  1918 
Rerijed  edition,  December,  1918 


41fj'3*^ 


(yfiBLL  mmr 


IN  MEMORY  OF 

JOHN  BYRNE  HACKETT,  M.D. 

WHO  LOVED  AND  SERVED 

IRELAND 


To  Ellen  Countess  Dowager  of  Desart,  Aut  Even, 
Kilkenny,  Ireland. 

Dear  Lady  Desart, 

It  was  through  your  great  kindness  In  19 13  that 
I  was  enabled  to  begin  this  book.  I  had  most  in 
mind,  at  that  time,  the  direct  upbuilding  of  which 
you  and  Captain  Cuffe  had  given  such  models  in 
Kilkenny  —  the  woollen  mills  and  the  woodworks 
and  tobacco  culture.  When  I  came  back  to  the 
United  States,  as  I  wrote  you,  I  was  thinking  almost 
altogether  of  the  needless  disorganizations  of  Irish 
life,  and  I  believed  there  were  corresponding  organi- 
zations of  American  life  which  could  be  adapted  to 
Ireland.  An  American  might  not  easily  imagine  the 
salient  educative  facts  that  would  strike  an  Irishman, 
but  I  was  convinced  that  we  could  apply  to  ourselves 
much  that  had  been  quietly  developing  in  the  ways 
of  equipping  and  directing  and  cultivating  American 
citizenship.  In  spite  of  Ulster  and  Sir  Edward 
Carson,  national  and  Imperial  issues  were  scarcely 
in  my  mind  at  all,  until  August,  19 14. 

Since  August,  19 14,  we  have  seen  Ireland  grow 
more  and  more  uneasy  In  the  powerful  currents  that 
are  sweeping  through  the  world.  With  the  coming 
of  the  war  I  confess  I  lost  hold  on  my  first  Intentions 
and  have  never  been  able  to  take  them  up  again. 
Ireland  has  remained  In  my  mind,  but  much  less  as 
a  country  relentlessly  determined  by  the  will  of  Ulster 


and  England,  much  more  as  a  country  with  free  will 
and  a  large  opportunity  to  make  that  will  effective. 
The  national  will  of  Ireland  has  emerged  as  a  great 
reality  for  me,  and  in  this  book  I  am  much  more 
occupied  with  this  reality  than  with  the  details  of 
reconstruction  and  reclamation.  Ireland  is  too  near 
a  new  arrangement  of  public  authority  not  to  make 
everything  else  subordinate,  especially  when  its 
claims  are  so  largely  misrepresented  and  misunder- 
stood. 

Apart  from  the  love  of  Ireland  which  we  both 
share,  I  believe  that  our  convictions  are  often  dis- 
similar, and  I  am  sure  you  will  completely  disagree 
with  much  that  I  have  written.  But  I  write  with 
John  Morley's  words  before  me,  "  The  important 
thing  is  not  that  two  people  should  be  inspired  by  the 
same  convictions,  but  rather  that  each  of  them  should 
hold  his  and  her  own  convictions  in  a  high  and 
worthy  spirit.  Harmony  of  aim,  not  identity  of  con- 
clusion, is  the  secret  ..."  I  wish  I  could  be  as 
sure  of  my  own  "  high  and  worthy  spirit  "  as  I  am 
of  yours;  but  even  with  my  failures  manifested  in 
these  pages,  I  trust  you  will  read  this  book  in  place 
of  "  the  book  "  to  which  you  gave  your  friendship 
and  support. 

Yours  sincerely, 

Francis  Hackett. 

New  York,  June  5,  igi8. 


CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTORY 
I    The  Imperial  Relation,  13 

CAUSES 

II    The  Unwritten  Version,  37 

III  An  Economic  Approach,  60 

IV  The  Ways  of  Nationalism,  99 

V  Catholic  and  Protestant,  129 

CONSEQUENCES 

VI  The  Economic  Legacy,  157 
VII    The  Political  Legacy,  195 

VIII  The  National  Legacy,  222 

IX  The  Insurrection  of  19 16,  248 

X  Uneducated  Ireland,  276 
XI  The  Irish  Idyl,  299 

REMEDIES 

XII     Holy  Poverty,  315 

XIII  Manumission,  343 

XIV  The  Way  to  Freedom,  374 

APPENDIX 
The  Skeleton  of  Ireland,  399 


PART  I 

INTRODUCTORY 

Were  mankind  murderous  or  jealous  upon  you,  my  brother, 

my  sister? 
I  am  sorry   for  you,   they  are  not  murderous  or  jealous 

upon  me, 
All  has  been  gentle  with  me,  I  keep  no  account  with  lameiv 
tation, 
(What  have  I  to  do  with  lamentation?). 

Walt  Whitman, 


[THE  IMPERIAL  RELATION 

"  And  there  is  another  great  piece  of  legislation 
which  awaits  and  should  receive  the  sanction  of  the 
Senate  —  I  mean  the  bill  which  gives  a  larger  meas- 
ure of  self-government  to  the  people  of  the  Phil- 
ippines. How  better,  in  this  time  of  anxious  ques- 
tioning and  perplexed  policy,  could  we  show  our 
confidence  in  the  principles  of  liberty,  as  the  source 
as  well  as  the  expression  of  life,  how  better  could 
we  demonstrate  our  own  self-possession  and  stead- 
fastness in  the  courses  of  justice  and  disinterested- 
ness than  by  thus  going  calmly  forward  to  fulfill 
our  promises  to  a  dependent  people,  who  will  look 
more  anxiously  than  ever  to  see  whether  we  have 
indeed  the  liberality,  the  unselfishness,  the  courage, 
the  faith,  we  have  boasted  and  professed.  I  can  not 
believe  that  the  Senate  will  let  this  great  measure 
of  constructive  justice  await  the  action  of  another 
Congress." — Woodrow  Wilson,  December,  1914. 

THE    PURPOSE    OF   THE    BOOK 

r  REQUENTLY  in  speaking  about  Ireland  to 
Americans  I  have  discovered  that  the  total  effect  of 
lively  assertion  is  to  leave  them  confused  and  bored. 
It  is  largely  with  the  confused  and  the  bored  in 
mind  that  this  book  is  written.  There  are  many- 
eloquent  and  thrilling  books  on  Ireland.  The  na- 
tional struggle  of  the  Irish  people  is  a  fit  subject 

[  13  ] 


for  warm  and  persuasive  writing.  But  the  desir- 
able object  at  present  seems  to  me  to  place  Ireland 
in  the  clear  light  where  facts  can  be  fairly  considered. 
My  aim  in  this  book  is  to  examine  the  condition  of 
Ireland,  to  interpret  its  nationalism,  to  show  the 
difficulty  of  its  relation  with  England,  to  proceed 
from  causes  to  consequences,  and  then  to  remedies. 
The  reader  may  easily  differ  from  me  In  the  end. 
He  may  decide  that  I  disagree  with  the  Tory 
,  Englishman  because  I  do  not  allow  for  the  needs  of 
the  empire,  or  because  the  past  is  too  much  with  us, 
or  because  I  am  a  particularist  in  spite  of  myself. 
Whatever  his  verdict  on  these  points,  I  shall  have 
failed  in  my  object  if  I  have  not  improved  his  op- 
portunity of  judging  the  question  for  himself.  Ac- 
cording to  any  democratic  or  liberal  criteria,  I  con- 
sider that  Ireland  has  on  its  side  the  durable 
advocacy  of  the  facts.  But  facts  can  never  be  seen 
in  their  relevance  unless  they  are  honestly  respected, 
and  my  chief  aim  has  been  to  have  nationalism 
supply  the  incentive  for  writing  rather  than  the  evi- 
dence and  the  arguments  submitted  for  the  reader's 
judgment.  Both  Englishmen  and  Irishmen  are 
solemnly  Involved  In  the  responsibility  for  Ireland's 
condition,  but  It  Is  simple  futility  to  let  English 
patriotism  or  Irish  patriotism  dictate  the  Inquiry. 

A  judicial  consideration  does.  In  my  opinion,  lead 
to  the  severest  conclusions  In  regard  to  the  actual 
government  of  Ireland,  organic  as  well  as  func- 
tional, present  as  well  as  past.  I  think  that  It  can 
be  proved  that  the  men  In  power.  Englishmen  and 
Anglo-Irishmen,  have  as  a  rule  failed  in  the  first 
psychological  essential  of  government,  entrance  into 
the  genuine  will  of  the  governed.     They  have  failed, 

[  H] 


for  the  most  part,  because  they  have  lacked  true 
community  of  interest  with  Ireland  and  because  they 
have  never  really  chosen  to  share  in  the  universe 
of  native  Irish  discourse.  Englishmen  often  will- 
ingly admit  the  "  stupidities  "  and  "  blunders  "  of 
the  past  that  arose  from  this  policy;  they  have  done 
this,  point  by  point,  for  some  hundreds  of  years. 
But  it  is  invariably  the  offences  of  the  past  that  the 
governing  class  is  willing  to  confess,  never  the  per- 
sisting relation  from  which  these  offences  have  un- 
failingly sprung  and  must  unfailingly  continue  to 
spring.  The  offences  of  the  living  present  are  such, 
however,  that,  upholding  my  faith  in  the  judicial 
method,  I  conceive  passing  sentence  to  be  part  of  it. 
But  while  I  look  to  the  passing  of  sentence  by  fair- 
minded  men,  whether  they  be  Irish  or  English  or 
American,  it  is  only  because  such  sentence,  passed 
for  the  relief  of  a  people,  must  involve  a  wholesome 
transfer  of  power,  the  essential  preliminary  to  re- 
construction. This  is  not  the  dictate  of  simple  na- 
tionalism. If  a  writer's  approach  is  unequivocally 
nationalistic,  he  is  punitive,  goaded  by  the  remorse- 
less passion  of  a  Sicilian  or  a  Kentuckian.  This  is 
wholly  understandable  since,  as  Justice  O.  W. 
Holmes  has  defined  it,  "  vengeance,  not  compensa- 
tion, and  vengeance  on  the  offending  thing,  was  the 
original  object  "  of  asserting  liability.  But,  for  my 
own  part,  I  honestly  distrust  the  retaliatory  spirit, 
even  when  it  Is  combined  with  the  nationalistic  prin- 
ciple. I  am  afraid  of  the  encouragement  that  it 
offers  to  the  egoism  which  sleeps  so  fitfully  inside 
every  nationalistic  habit  of  mind.  But  apart  from 
the  Irishness  of  Ireland  there  is,  as  I  believe,  a 
problem  of  human  liberation  involved  in  Ireland, 

[  15  ] 


and  It  Is  because  of  this  that  Ireland  Is  bound  to  pro- 
claim England's  liability  today.  "  The  very  con- 
siderations which  judges  most  rarely  mention,  and 
always  with  apology,  are  the  secret  root  from  which 
the  law  draws  all  the  juices  of  life,"  declares  Justice 
Holmes.  "  I  mean,  of  course,  considerations  of 
what  Is  expedient  for  the  community  concerned." 
These  are  the  considerations,  more  pertinent  than 
any  desire  to  stone  the  offending  ox,  which  make  me 
believe  It  right  that  England  and  Anglo-Ireland  be 
held  fully  and  strictly  and  promptly  accountable  In 
regard  to  the  Irish  people. 

CELT   AND    SAXON 

Americans  are  frequently  unable  to  reconcile  the 
nationalistic  Irishman's  account  of  England  with  their 
own  impression  of  the  English  race  and  even  the 
British  empire.  Such  Americans  may  like  their  Irish- 
man, they  may  want  to  be  hospitable  to  his  emotions, 
but  they  cannot  belie  the  admiration  and  respect  they 
have  long  given  to  England.  An  Irishman  may  go 
to  any  length  in  defaming  the  English.  He  may 
quote  Heine  and  Voltaire,  argue  hypocrisy  and  em- 
pire, display  India  and  Egypt;  but  there  Is  a  firm 
substratum  of  respect  and  admiration  that  he  cannot 
easily  dislocate.  It  is  only  necessary  to  examine 
Emerson's  English  Traits  to  see  how  a  wise  New 
Englander  really  feels  about  Old  England  and  the 
English.  Of  course  one  can  find  Innumerable  Amer- 
icans who  have  used  the  English  despltefully,  as 
Senator  Henry  Cabot  Lodge  has  done  in  his  recol- 
lections, just  as  one  can  find  a  number  of  Americans 
who  take  the  English  as  their  superiors.     The  emo- 

[  i6  ] 


tions  to  which  I  refer  are  different.  They  are  rea- 
soned and  proved  by  experience,  like  Emerson's. 
They  are  not  derived  from  the  mere  size  and  wealth 
of  the  empire,  though  the  benignity  of  time  to  Eng- 
land is  in  itself  influential.  Nor  do  these  feelings 
depend  on  the  impressiveness  of  force  majeure,  on 
the  one  hand,  or  the  fairy  tale  of  Pax  Britannica,  on 
the  other.  The  languor  of  a  peerage  long  installed, 
the  dignity  of  the  law  lords,  the  timbre  of  society, 
the  cut  of  clothes,  the  acolyte  strictness  of  servants, 
the  art  of  garden  parties  —  these  may  engage  some 
people,  but  what  the  sane  American  sees  to  admire  in 
England  is  something  that  springs  out  of  a  depth 
and  reliability  of  character  which  is  not  less  pro- 
claimed by  the  superb  and  massive  achievement  of 
English  law  than  by  the  sustained  glory  of  English 
literature.  No  one  who  has  mingled  in  this  proces- 
sion of  a  people's  consciousness  can  fail  to  find  in  it  a 
greatness  of  reception  and  a  greatness  of  response  of 
spirit.  As  the  bells  of  Oxford  chime  their  varied 
music,  so  the  tongues  of  English  literature  sing  many 
different  tunes;  but  at  the  heart  of  them  there  is  the 
unison  of  something  deep  and  generous,  something 
well  sent  and  v/ell  found.  To  reconcile  the  experi- 
ences of  English  literature,  not  to  speak  of  personal 
English  contacts,  with  the  theory  of  a  purely  malig- 
nant policy  in  Ireland  Is  a  psychological  somersault 
the  Intelligent  American  Is  not  prepared  for.  He 
may  admit  that  some  of  the  most  famous  Englishmen 
have  been  Scotch,  Welsh  and  Irish;  he  may  agree 
that  along  with  stout  English  honesty  and  simplicity 
and  courage  there  go  a  stiff  legalism,  a  resolute  self- 
preference,   a  disinclination  to  think  for  the  other 

[  17  ] 


man.  But,  agree  or  not,  the  evidence  on  the  side 
of  fairness  —  of  honesty,  sobriety  and  industry  —  is 
altogether  too  stupendous  not  to  make  a  race  com- 
posed wholly  of  Richard  the  Thirds  seem  incredible 
and  laughable.  It  may  be  granted  that  layers  of 
evidence  have  to  be  penetrated  before  the  American 
grasps  the  paradox  of  Anglo-Irish  history;  but  the 
solution  of  that  paradox  is  never  diabolism.  The 
American  is  absolutely  sound  in  the  instinct  which 
compels  him  to  reject  the  wholesale  indictment  of 
England. 

The  wholesale  indictment  of  Ireland  belongs  in 
the  same  psychological  category.  Everyone  knows, 
of  course,  the  compensatory  account  of  Irish  gran- 
deur and  glory  that  has  squared  the  patriotic  bal- 
ance. The  technical  names  of  this  sort  of  idyl  are 
sunburstery  and  raimeis  (rawmaish).  "Our  poor 
people,"  said  John  Mitchel,  "  were  continually  as- 
sured that  they  were  the  finest  peasantry  in  the  world 
— '  A  One  among  the  nations.'  They  were  told 
that  their  grass  was  greener,  their  women  fairer, 
their  mountains  higher,  their  valleys  lower,  than 
those  of  other  lands;  —  that  their  'moral  force' 
(alas!)  had  conquered  before,  and  would  again:  — 
that  next  year  would  be  the  Repeal  year:  in  fine,  that 
Ireland  would  be  the  first  flower  of  the  earth  and 
first  gem  of  the  sea.  Not  that  the  Irish  are  a  stupid 
race,  or  naturally  absurd;  but  the  magician  be- 
witched them  to  their  destruction."  The  origin  of 
this  Irish  bombast  is  far  from  obscure:  it  was  gene- 
rated to  meet  the  conquerors'  version  of  the  con- 
quered. Englishmen,  it  may  be  admitted,  had  not 
failed  to  paint  the  Irish  portrait.  We  know  how 
Texas  feels  about  Mexico.     The  Texan  is  a  eulogist 

[  i8  ] 


of  the  Mexican  compared  with  Milton  describing 
the  Irish;  and  nothing  is  more  astonishing,  as  I  hope 
to  show  later  on,  than  the  unobstructed  flow  of  this 
early  prejudice  down  to  the  present  time.  Mixed 
up  as  it  is  with  a  strong  feeling  about  the  papists,  it 
is  to  be  disclosed  today  not  only  in  East  Anglia  and 
Ulster  but  in  Back  Bay,  well-named,  and  up  and 
down  the  Connecticut  Valley.  The  commonplaces 
of  such  wholesale  indictment  go  quite  contrary  to 
the  commonplaces  of  political  science.  They  vio- 
late everything  we  know  about  human  educability 
and  governmental  institutions  and  race  culture.  Yet 
in  spite  of  the  invincible  lessons  of  sociology  and 
psychology  —  lessons  which  the  country  of  the  melt- 
ing pot  really  does  lay  store  by  —  we  find  assump- 
tions deeply  discreditable  to  Irish  character,  espe- 
cially as  regards  truthfulness  and  reliability  and  hon- 
esty and  industry,  firmly  Implanted  in  the  popular 
mind. 

It  may  easily  be  held  true  that  there  is  an  aborig- 
inal Irishman  exactly  like  the  Punch  cartoon  of  the 
Irishman.  It  may  be  quite  true  that  the  Irish  be- 
lieve in  priests  and  fairies  and  machine-politicians, 
instead  of  Mary  Baker  Eddy  and  "  secret  reme- 
dies "  and  the  direct  primary.  But  the  way  to  judge 
the  Irish,  like  the  way  to  judge  the  English,  is  to  dis- 
regard as  completely  as  possible  those  explanations 
which,  pretending  to  be  supported  on  a  last  ultimate 
elephant  of  fact,  are  really  part  of  the  universal  art 
of  self-deception.  The  experienced  woman  suffra- 
gist will  know  precisely  what  I  mean.  There  were 
few  men,  twenty  years  ago,  who  were  not  ready  to 
expound  the  eternally  valid  reasons  against  women's 
ever  voting,  whenever  the  male  was  asked  to  re- 

[  19] 


apportion  political  power.  A  great  deal  of  Irish  con- 
troversy has  turned  on  just  this  kind  of  prejudice. 
There  are  volumes  of  English  speeches  to  show  why 
the  Irish  are  not  "  fit  "  for  self-government,  speeches 
amusingly  illustrated  with  shillelaghs  and  pigs. 
There  are  columns  of  English  print  to  indicate  that 
the  Irish  are  beyond  discipline  and  self-control  and 
initiative  —  though  of  course  they  make  excellent 
soldiers,  where  discipline  and  control  and  the  rest 
are  not  undesirable.  It  does  not  matter  that  these 
self-defeating  arguments  have  long  since  been  an- 
alyzed and  tabulated  by  social  science,  that  the  rea- 
sons why  they  are  used  are  quite  as  clearly  intelligi- 
ble as  the  reasons  why  little  boys  scrawl  dirty  words 
on  blank  walls.  The  kind  of  people  who  believe  in 
the  wholesale  indictment  of  a  race  do  not  care. 
They  cling  hard  to  their  archaic  practice,  let  who 
will  be  clever.  At  the  moment,  at  any  rate,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  note  their  existence,  and  to  assert 
the  probability  that  their  method  leads  nowhere,  that 
it  has  no  virtue  in  it,  that  it  is  bred  in  the  lairs  of 
instinct. 

Many  people  who  rise  clear  above  prejudice  can- 
not help  feeling  that  the  Irish  question  is  largely  a 
sentimental  question.  The  war  may  disclose  un- 
expected differences  between  Britons  and  Irish  na- 
tionalists. It  may  show  an  astonishing  vitality  in 
nationalist  sentiment.  Yet  the  governments  that 
have  dealt  with  Bohemia  and  Armenia  and  Russia 
and  Poland  have  shown  what  ruthlessness  can  really 
be,  and  beside  such  ruthlessness  the  indignities  to 
Irish  nationalism  seem  scarcely  worth  recording. 
In  the  dim  past,  perhaps,  there  were  crimes  and 
blunders,   but  we   are   compelled  to   deal  with  the 

[    20] 


present,  and  the  hardships  of  Ireland  in  the  twentieth 
century  afford  nothing  like  the  physical  enslavement 
and  degradation  which  are  still  the  iron  rule  under 
dynastic  empires.  This  is  a  common  point  of  view, 
but  no  more  common  today  than  it  was  forty  years 
ago,  and  nearly  forty  years  ago  Matthew  Arnold 
addressed  himself  to  it  In  a  manner  that  is  still  ir- 
reproachable. So  long  as  the  overwhelming  issue 
of  self-government  is  not  confronted,  it  Is  corrupt- 
ing sophistry  to  talk  of  the  "  dim  "  past  and  ancient 
*'  grievances."  Such  sophistry  does  not  survive  the 
critical  examination  of  Matthew  Arnold.  "  We 
shall  solve  at  last,  I  hope  and  believe,"  said  Matthew 
Arnold,  "  the  difficulty  which  the  state  of  Ireland 
presents  to  us.  But  we  shall  never  solve  It  without 
first  understanding  it;  and  we  shall  never  understand 
It  while  we  pedantically  accept  whatever  accounts 
of  It  happen  to  pass  current  with  our  class,  or  party, 
or  leaders,  and  to  be  recommended  by  our  fond  de- 
sire and  theirs.  We  must  see  the  matter  as  It  really 
stands;  we  must  cease  to  Ignore,  and  to  try  to  set 
aside,  the  nature  of  things;  'by  contending  against 
which,  what  have  we  got,  or  shall  ever  get,  but  de- 
feat and  shame  '?  " 

It  Is  with  this  desire  to  promote  understanding 
that  I  have  followed  Matthew  Arnold's  good  ex- 
ample In  going  back  beyond  the  Immediate  past. 
Arnold  was  aware  that  this  practice  was  seriously 
discouraged.  Moreover,  "  the  angry  memory  of 
conquest  and  confiscation  "  had  no  peculiar  attrac- 
tion for  his  fine  and  urbane  spirit.  But  his  intelli- 
gence assured  him  that  until  anger  was  dried  up  at 
Its  source,  as  it  had  been  In  the  case  of  "  the  Prankish 
conquest  of  France,  the  Norman  conquest  of  Eng- 

[  21   ] 


land,"  it  was  useless  to  expect  "  the  solid  settlement 
of  things  "  in  Ireland.  It  is  with  the  same  feeling 
that  I  have  gone  back  to  facts  about  which  such 
notable  works  as  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  are 
either  silent  or  discreetly  inaccurate,  and  have  sought 
to  relate  such  facts  to  the  realities  of  the  present,  on 
which  things  that  are  repressed  have  usually  the 
most  powerful  bearing.  The  pursuit  of  reality 
through  the  dry  regions  of  economics  and  politics  is 
a  task  far  from  congenial  to  most  writers  on  Ireland. 
Outside  four  or  five  Englishmen,  a  dozen  Frenchmen 
and  a  few  Irishmen,  almost  no  one  has  written  im- 
partially and  scientifically  about  the  meaning  of  Irish 
history.  Yet  its  meaning  has  kept  unchanged  up  to 
the  present  hour,  in  spite  of  modern  reforms  and 
concessions.  And  there  is  no  possibility  of  the 
"  solid  settlement  "  until  this  meaning  of  Irish  his- 
tory is  accepted,  and  statesmanship  guided  accord- 
ingly. 

There  is,  of  course,  a  conspiracy  of  the  established 
order  against  re-reading  history  in  any  such  spirit. 
But  we  must  remember  that  persons  no  more  radical 
or  fanatical  than  Matthew  Arnold  had  always  too 
much  integrity  to  cajole  the  Irish  people  into  agree- 
ing to  half-settlements  and  quarter-solutions  and  the 
kind  of  bastard  statesmanship  to  which  Mr.  Lloyd 
George  has  treated  us.  It  is  well  to  think  of  191 8 
when  reading  Matthew  Arnold,  and  to  see  how  little 
the  problem  has  changed  in  the  absence  of  a  genuine 
adjustment.  The  adjustment  has  still  to  be  made, 
regardless  of  patchwork  and  makeshift,  and  it  begins 
to  be  evident  that  there  will  be  no  peace  or  moral 
satisfaction  until  it  is  genuine.  It  is  still  appropri- 
ate, in  this  connection,  to  quote  Matthew  Arnold  on 

[  22  J 


the  futility  of  offering  sops  for  settlement,  In  obedi- 
ence to  the  prejudices  of  the  English  and  Anglo- 
Irish  classes  in  power.  "  It  may  console  the  poor 
Irish,"  he  said,  "  when  official  personages  insist 
on  assuring  them  that  certain  insufficient  remedies 
are  sufficient,  and  are  also  the  only  remedies  possible, 
it  may  console  them  to  know,  that  there  are  a  number 
of  quiet  people,  over  here,  who  feel  that  this  sort  of 
thing  is  pedantry  and  make-believe,  and  who  dislike 
and  distrust  our  common  use  of  it,  and  think  it  dan- 
gerous. These  quiet  people  know  that  It  must  go 
on  being  used  for  a  long  time  yet,  but  they  condemn 
and  disown  it;  and  they  do  their  best  to  prepare 
opinion  for  banishing  it. 

"  But  the  truth  is,  in  regard  to  Ireland,  the  preju- 
dices of  our  two  most  Influential  classes,  the  upper 
class  and  the  middle  class,  tend  always  to  make  a 
compromise  together,  and  to  be  tender  to  one  an- 
other's weaknesses;  and  this  is  unfortunate  for  Ire- 
land." 

REFORMS  AND  CONCESSIONS 
In  the  reforms  and  concessions  that  came  since  the 
death  of  Matthew  Arnold,  many  good  persons  have 
sought  to  see  the  end  of  the  Irish  issue,  but  precisely 
the  same  forces  that  were  operative  In  his  time  have 
been  operative  since.  Modern  Anglo-Irish  rela- 
tions were  integrated  by  Parnell.  With  the  tragic 
end  of  his  career  there  came  an  end  to  the  clear 
enunciation  of  Irish  parliamentary  policy.  It  then 
began  to  be  believed  by  Irishmen  that  the  social  cost 
of  home  rule  was  too  high.  A  people  that  had  been 
at  war  for  its  constitution  felt  the  drain  of  keeping 
men  In  the  field.     An  era  of  political  pacifism  and 

[  23  J 


social  reform  succeeded.  It  Is  scarcely  disputable 
now,  however,  that  this  tendency  to  abnegation  was 
a  reaction,  not  a  development.  The  feud  in  which 
Parnell  expired  brought  discredit  on  the  Irish  par- 
liamentarians. The  poorest  leaders  seemed  to  be 
those  same  parliamentarians,  and  by  contrast  the 
most  high-minded  men  either  those  who  started  to 
work  for  a  sound  extra-governmental  internal  econ- 
omy or  those  who  preached  Sinn  Fein, —  Ireland's 
refusal  to  cohabit  with  her  ruler.  For  the  twenty 
years,  1894-19 14,  these  were  the  prevailing  faiths  of 
the  best  Irish  citizenship.  The  struggle  for  a  new 
constitution,  the  home  rule  struggle,  seemed  a  mat- 
ter of  convention  and  routine. 

The  exigencies  of  the  present  European  war 
proclaimed  that  nationalism  was  not  altogether  a 
chimera  of  the  sentimentalist.  When  men  are  asked 
to  enlist  in  the  defence  of  the  empire,  it  proves  that 
the  relation  to  the  empire  is  a  real  and  exacting  one, 
and  that  those  who  assumed  the  status  of  the  union 
to  be  good  enough  for  all  practical  purposes  were 
actually  begging  a  question  of  life  and  death.  To 
beg  this  question  was  indeed  natural.  Since  Irish- 
men showed  so  little  concern  about  the  substance  of 
their  statehood  it  seemed  reasonable  to  contemn 
them  for  haggling  about  the  form  of  the  state.  The 
ache  for  explicit  home  rule  seemed  a  mania  when  so 
much  implicit  home  rule  was  neglected.  The  fer- 
ment and  distress  caused  by  the  external  relations 
suggested  unhealthiness  of  soul,  sentimental  evasion 
of  the  corrigible  difficulties  within.  But  the  de- 
mands of  the  war  indicate  that  the  constitutional 
question  was  anything  but  academic.  It  is  the  eco- 
nomic homilists  who  are  indicted  by  the  disorganiza- 

[24] 


tion  of  the  Irish  mind,  in  regard  to  imperial  conscrip- 
tion, not  the  men  who  claimed  to  be  on  a  basis  that 
was  irksome  and  humiliating.  If  the  bulk  of  the 
Irish  people  wanted  home  rule,  there  w^as  a  time 
when  they  wanted  it  largely  for  the  sake  of  the  de- 
cency it  would  give  to  their  imperial  standing.  But 
before  they  had  that  decency  in  their  own  minds, 
before  they  had  the  sanction  in  the  empire  which 
could  make  them  feel  that  their  fate  was  British  as 
well  as  Irish,  they  were  summoned  to  accept  con- 
scription. A  more  disorganized  relation  could 
hardly  be  imagined.  The  man  who  is  summoned  to 
the  aid  of  a  brother  who  has  ill-treated  and  misun- 
derstood him  is  not  in  a  happy  frame  of  mind,  espe- 
cially if  the  brother  who  is  attacked  avails  himself 
of  the  crisis  to  set  aside  the  vital  contention  as  to  the 
ill-treatment  and  misunderstanding,  and  to  talk  as 
if  he  were  entitled  to  full  fraternal  help.  Perhaps 
he  is  entitled  to  help,  because  of  the  character  of  the 
attack.  That  provides  a  reason  for  aiding  him. 
But  to  aid  him  for  that  reason  is  a  lame  substitute 
for  the  staunch  reasons  that  an  adjusted  relation 
w^ould  have  supplied. 

The  response  of  Ireland  to  the  empire  was,  how- 
ever, amazingly  generous.  Over  90,000  Catholic 
Irishmen  and  60,000  Protestant  Irishmen,  in  Ireland 
itself,  volunteered  in  the  beginning  of  the  war. 
Then  the  stupidity  of  England  asserted  Itself.  "  At 
the  most  crucial  period  of  recruiting  at  the  beginning 
of  the  war,"  declared  Lloyd  George,  before  he  was 
prime  minister,  "  some  stupidities,  which  at  times 
looked  almost  like  malignance,  were  perpetrated  in 
Ireland  and  were  beyond  belief.  It  Is  very  difficult 
to  recover  a  lost  opportunity  of  that  kind  where 

[25  ] 


national  susceptibilities  have  been  offended  and  orig- 
inal enthusiasm  killed." 

That  was  stupidity  in  regard  to  recruiting.  A 
much  more  terrible  stupidity  was  permitted  in  regard 
to  home  rule.  When  England  entered  the  war  it 
was  quite  clear  that  it  could  not  expect  Irish  partici- 
pation unless  it  faced  the  home  rule  issue.  This 
was  not  a  palatable  fact,  but  it  was  a  fact.  The 
government  refused  to  face  the  home  rule  issue. 
Mr.  Lloyd  George  himself  pursued  the  policy  of 
evasion  that  he  had  inherited  from  Mr.  Asquith,  and 
allowed  himself  all  the  twisting  and  turning  and 
double  dealing  and  lying  that  an  evasive  policy  under 
such  circumstances  is  likely  to  demand.  Just  the 
results  that  were  to  be  expected  —  slack  recruiting, 
revolution,  coercion  —  were  brought  about  by  the 
insincerities  of  Mr.  Asquith  and  Mr.  George's 
trickiness  in  regard  to  excluding  Ulster  and  in  re- 
gard to  the  Irish  convention. 

THE    ADVENT    OF    REVOLUTION 

Revolution,  I  say,  was  foreseen  and  expected. 
As  early  as  December,  19 14,  I  venture  to  recall,  I 
myself  asked  in  the  New  Republic  what  England 
ought  to  do  to  enlist  Ireland,  and  I  spoke  as  a  great 
many  Irishmen  were  freely  and  candidly  speaking, 
both  as  to  the  prospect  of  revolution  and  the  neces- 
sity for  dealing  with  nationalist  Ireland. 

"  And  now,  what  to  do?  "  the  article  said.  "  For 
my  part,  as  an  Irish  nationalist,  I  can  think  only  of 
the  programme  that  is  being  bruited  In  Ireland. 
Base  as  were  the  methods,  nauseating  the  philoso- 
phy, and  evil  the  fruits  of  British  imperialism  In  Ire- 
land, there  is,  as  I  see  it,  no  particular  good  in  Ire- 

[26  J 


land  spiritually  or  physically  affirming  its  antagonism 
to  the  British  empire  at  the  present  time.  It  is  true 
that  the  government  has  already  suppressed  every  ex- 
treme nationalist  paper  in  the  country  and  is  prepar- 
ing, as  usual,  to  keep  alive  the  spirit  of  nationalism 
by  the  unfailing  method  of  coercion.  But  unless  the 
Irish  want  to  commit  themselves  to  the  belief  that 
statesmanship  is  bankrupt  and  that  the  only  way  to 
impress  England  is  to  injure  it,  there  is  still  a  sane 
way  by  which  the  principle  of  nationality  can  be 
reconciled  to  the  principle  of  empire.  To  find  the 
way  is  the  real  nobility,  if  Ireland  is  not  either  to 
default  like  the  [German]  socialists  or  to  be  turned 
into  a  suicidal  slaughter  house  by  the  efficient  secre- 
tary of  war.  .  .  . 

"  To  remedy  such  characteristic  indifference  at  the 
eleventh  hour,  when  it  is  desired  that  300,000  Irish- 
men, instead  of  150,000,  shall  go  to  the  continent  to 
fight  for  the  Union  Jack,  is  a  problem  to  task  even 
such  an  intermediary  as  John  Redmond.  In  the 
opinion  of  those  Irishmen  who  say  that  revolution 
is  brooding,  it  can  only  be  solved  by  a  definite  ful- 
fillment of  home  rule.  Such  is  the  only  fair  method 
by  which  nation  and  empire  may  be  annealed.  The 
suspension  of  that  measure  fobbed  off  the  Orange- 
men at  an  awkward  hour,  but  It  has  left  the  nation- 
alists in  a  state  of  sickened  suspense.  Ready  to  re- 
spond, even  now,  to  some  proof  that  England  is  fully 
capable  of  treating  Ireland  honorably,  they  ask  for 
governmental  candor.  If  instead  pusillanimous 
silence  is  preserved,  they  are  prepared,  the  extrem- 
ists, to  do  anything  that  can  injure  the  empire  to 
which  they  are  unwillingly  allied. 

"  If  Ireland  learns  now  that  home  rule  Is  to  re- 
[27  ] 


main  Intact,  conceding  Ulster  some  guarantee  such 
as  a  veto  on  all  Ulster  legislation,  the  real  impedi- 
ment to  goodwill  will  be  removed.  This  impedi- 
ment exists  because  the  government  has  not  faced 
Ulster.  It  has  loudly  affirmed  that  home  rule  is  a 
fair  democratic  measure,  yet  it  allows  Ulster,  prop- 
ertied Ulster,  to  make  it  stand  off  from  home  rule, 
nervously  counting  the  cost.  If  that  Is  the  way  of 
empire.  It  hardly  Inspires  Irishmen  to  offer  their 
lives. 

"  Since  Parnell  committed  Ireland  to  a  constitu- 
tional programme,  the  separatist  policy  has  seemed 
to  lose  its  hold.  But  In  the  last  year  many  thou- 
sand nationalist  Irishmen  have  learned  the  use  of 
arms.  In  spite  of  Mr.  Redmond's  efforts  to  rule 
these  men,  the  most  spirited  among  them  are  now 
absolutely  determined  to  force  Irish  demands  to  an 
issue,  and  nothing  except  prompt  governmental  con- 
cession can  keep  them  from  taking  a  stand.  If  the 
government,  as  is  feared,  begins  wholesale  arrests 
and  coercion,  the  result  will  be  an  abortive  revolu- 
tion, sure  to  be  suppressed  but  evil  In  every  possible 
way.  The  only  honorable  scheme  by  which  this  can 
be  averted  Is  the  remittance  of  Ireland's  acceded 
dues. 

"  Until  this  supreme  obligation  Is  fulfilled,  In  ad- 
vance of  any  draft  on  Ireland's  manhood,  the  main- 
tenance of  the  British  empire  cannot  be  of  real  con- 
cern to  the  majority  of  Irishmen.  If  they  cannot 
avail  themselves  of  boasted  '  public  law  '  and  '  de- 
mocracy,' many  are  sufficiently  desperate  to  be  ready 
for  the  alternative  militarism  and  '  Kultur.'  " 

It  is  now  May,  191 8,  three  and  a  half  years  later, 
and    the    governing    class    Is    still   prohibiting   the 

[  28  ] 


settlement  that  Ireland  called  for  and  needed. 
But  I  confess  I  am  not  surprised.  The  upper  class 
in  England  is  never  going  to  accept  this  situation 
voluntarily.  When  we  remember  how  the  Tories 
opposed  woman  suffrage,  Lord  Cromer  and  Lord 
Curzon  and  Lord  Lansdowne  and  Bonar  Law  be- 
ing lined  up  against  suffrage  precisely  as  they  are 
lined  up  against  home  rule,  with  Sir  F.  E.  Smith  as 
head  caddie,  we  need  not  expect  illumination  to  come 
to  them.  Take,  for  example,  the  expressions  of 
Lord  Curzon.  Speaking  in  1909  against  a  suffrage 
bill,  this  particular  arbiter  of  popular  destinies  de- 
scribed the  bill.  "  It  did  not  stop  at  manhood  suf- 
frage," he  said,  "  it  went  on  to  adult  suffrage,  and  it 
proposed  that  all  the  ladies'-maids,  and  the  shop- 
keepers' girls,  and  the  charwomen,  should  be  among 
the  future  rulers  of  the  British  empire."  Is  it  any 
wonder,  considering  these  expressions,  that  British 
labor  is  at  one  with  Irish  nationalism  in  its  distrust 
of  the  junkers  and  tories  in  England?  "  Lord  Cur- 
zon, Lord  Milner  and  Sir  Edward  Carson  are 
viewed  with  ineradicable  suspicion  by  labor,"  de- 
clares a  friend  of  Lloyd  George,^  "  in  that  they  are 
thought  to  be  essentially  undemocratic  in  spirit. 
Curzon's  gorgeous  imperialism  in  India  and  his  total 
lack  of  sympathy  with  Indian  reformers;  Milner's 
cold,  remorseless  imperialism  in  South  Africa;  Car- 
son's exploitation  of  the  old  ascendancy  prejudice  in 
Ireland  —  these  men  and  the  policies  they  represent, 
are  unpopular  with  the  mass  of  the  working  classes." 
What  must  be  done?  "  In  war  time,"  suggests  the 
friend  of  Lloyd  George,  "  we  must  sink  personal 
feelings  and  party  prejudices,  and  mobilize  all  the 

1  In  Lloyd  George  and  the  War,  by  an  Independent  Liberal. 
[    29    ] 


talents   in   the   country's    service."     Is    democracy, 
then,  a  personal  feeling  and  a  party  prejudice? 

All  of  this  underlies  the  problem  of  reconstruc- 
tion, the  true  struggle  of  the  Irish  people.  If  Ire- 
land were  independent  of  Great  Britain  tomorrow, 
that  true  struggle  would  go  on,  the  struggle  of  every 
people  to  attain  self-development  under  the  existing 
modern  state.  At  the  basis  of  this  integration  of 
Ireland  must  be  the  people  of  Ireland,  Presbyterian 
and  Protestant  and  Catholic.  Their  status,  whether 
they  are  industrial  or  agricultural,  is  the  measure  of 
Ireland's  place  in  the  civilization  of  the  world.  The 
history  of  these  people,  so  far  as  they  are  native  and 
Catholic,  has  been,  as  I  attempt  to  indicate  in  the 
next  chapter,  a  history  of  economic  degradation. 
Its  correction  still  awaits  Ireland. 

THE    STATE   A    FAQADE 

Indispensable  as  a  government  Is  to  every  peo- 
ple I  should  be  long  sorry  to  begin  a  book  on 
Ireland  by  laying  all  the  emphasis  on  Its  govern- 
ment. The  nationalism  of  Ireland  and  its  bearing 
on  the  Imperial  relation  go  a  good  way  to  make  Ire- 
land inscrutable  —  especially  when  one  wishes  it  to 
be  inscrutable.  But  whatever  form  of  parliamen- 
tary rule  Ireland  has,  whatever  the  settlement  of 
19 1 8,  the  realities  of  the  people  of  Ireland  must  not 
be  held  to  rest  with  any  temporary  governmental 
settlement. 

There  are  forces  affecting  the  atoms  of  every 
human  group  that  the  government  merely  gathers 
up  and  discharges,  as  the  cloud  gathers  up  and  dis- 
charges rain.  And  as  the  cloud  is  merely  the 
medium  of  rain  so  government,  the  engrossing  topic 

[  30  ] 


of  the  ruling  class,  may  often  best  be  understood  by 
seeing  it  in  its  deference  to  hidden  forces  rather  than 
in  its  apparent  command  of  them.  To  search  out 
these  forces,  to  comprehend  them  and  the  deference 
that  government  pays  them,  is  usually  a  better  way 
to  reach  an  understanding  of  the  governmental  state 
than  to  begin  with  its  formal  manifestations.  This 
does  not  mean  that  the  state  is  unimportant.  No 
power  is  unimportant  that  can  be  invoked  when  any- 
one gets  out  of  hand,  and  that  can  itself  define  what 
"  out  of  hand "  means.  But  the  word  state  Is 
largely  a  fagade  for  the  governing  class.  One  must 
remember,  and  keep  remembering,  that  behind  every 
form  of  government  there  Is  a  whole  people,  sover- 
eign yet  not  enthroned,  potent  yet  not  In  power,  ac- 
countable yet  not  decisive.  Before  them  the  facade 
of  the  state  Is  sometimes  wheeled,  but  It  does  not  re- 
pose upon  them.  The  world,  as  Mr.  H.  J.  LaskI 
so  forcibly  demonstrates  In  his  work  on  Authority 
in  the  Modern  State,  has  come  altogether  too  much 
to  Ignore  the  vast  Interests  behind  the  state.  Indis- 
pensable the  state  may  be,  but  too  easily  It  falls  be- 
hind the  evolution  of  a  people,  retarded  by  the  hands 
of  rulers.  Its  Importance  should  disguise  neither 
its  dangers  nor  Its  limitations.  Subservience  to  It 
should  never  bind  the  Imagination  of  a  people. 

At  times  great  doubt  comes  Into  every  man's  soul. 
No  matter  what  faith  Inspires  him.  It  seems  hopeless 
to  persist  In  the  belief  that  men  will  ever  achieve 
what  is  desirable  —  whether  It  be  a  freedom  by  gov- 
ernment or  a  freedom  from  It.  Every  man  with  a 
personal  belief  Is  Inundated  with  surrounding  indiffer- 
ence. That  indifference  creeps  Into  him  as  a  fog 
creeps  Into  a  city.     Within  him  as  well  as  without 

[  31  ] 


there  are  voices  to  whisper  indifference  to  him,  to 
lull  his  memory,  to  seduce  his  will,  to  dissuade  him 
from  conviction.  One  of  the  subtlest  of  these  voices 
tells  him  that  the  people  are  never  contented  with 
their^  government.  But  when  a  man  remembers  the 
pretensions  of  the  state  and  the  condition  of  the  peo- 
ple, when  he  recalls  that  behind  every  form  of  gov- 
ernment there  is  a  gigantic  uninstructed  power  with 
endless  vitality,  he  is  inspired  to  renew  his  faith  and 
speak  of  the  people.  He  will  be  told  that  he  is  un- 
reasonable, that  it  Is  nationalism  or  some  other  cult 
that  creates  the  critical  relation  to  the  state  which  the 
ruling  class  finds  so  unimaginable.  There  is  more 
than  nationalism,  at  any  rate.  In  that  Irish  attitude 
to  the  state  which  I  hope  to  represent.  If  Ireland 
were  part  of  the  American  union  or  the  Italian  union 
or  the  German  union,  if  it  stood  as  Holland  or  Den- 
mark or  Switzerland  or  Finland  stand,  another  tone 
would  have  to  be  employed;  but  the  evolution  of  the 
people  should  still  be  paramount  In  interest,  what- 
ever the  governmental  equilibrium  of  the  moment. 

For  these  reasons  It  is  impossible  to  take  "  home 
rule  "  or  self-government  as  the  goal  of  Irish  aspira- 
tions, just  as  It  is  impossible  to  wish  the  people  of 
Ireland  ruinously  subordinated  to  the  so-called  unity 
of  the  empire.  The  test  of  Ireland's  well-being  is  by 
no  means  its  self-sufficiency;  neither  can  it  be  the  self- 
sufficiency  of  the  British  empire.  Its  well-being  can 
only  be  justly  measured  by  observing  its  place  in  the 
civilization  of  the  world.  To  complete  its  develop- 
ment something  more  may  be  required  than  "  home 
rule  ";  something,  at  the  same  time,  quite  Independ- 
ent of  government,  something  that  Includes  and 
favors  whatever  Is  genuinely  heroic  In  the  people. 

[32  ] 


When  an  Irishman  visits  immemorial  England  his 
heart  may  well  faint  at  the  prospect  of  reconstruct- 
ing a  land  so  poor  as  his  own;  but  it  is  a  prospect 
forced  on  him  by  the  tragedy  of  the  past.  Ireland 
is  a  depleted  country;  retarded,  handicapped,  dis- 
trusted, with  the  scars  of  disease  upon  it,  with  only 
occasional  flashes  of  supernal  grace  and  beauty;  but 
the  fact  remains  that  it  is  for  the  people  of  Ireland 
to  shoulder  their  responsibility,  to  summon  their  own 
forces  to  the  task  of  reconstruction,  to  see  their  own 
country  redeemed  and  made  great. 

The  belief  that  a  reconstruction  awaits  Ireland  has 
been  held  by  the  people  for  a  long  period,  but  it  is 
undoubtedly  difficult,  both  as  a  matter  of  theory  and 
a  matter  of  fact,  to  disentangle  this  problem  of  re- 
construction from  the  question  of  Ireland's  statehood 
and  the  worldwide  preoccupation  with  the  state. 
Mr.  Ernest  Poole  tells  us  that  Russian  dentists  can- 
not get  together  in  a  dental  congress  without  arriv- 
ing in  twenty  minutes  at  the  sorrows  of  Russia.  In 
no  different  manner  have  Irishmen  been  bitterly  and 
deeply  obsessed  by  their  own  problems  of  govern- 
ment. And  the  more  they  talk  about  it,  especially 
to  the  outside  world,  the  more  the  real  question  of 
Ireland's  entity  and  Ireland's  destiny  is  in  danger  of 
being  obscured. 

But  government  can  be  the  most  potent  form  of 
cooperation,  and  since,  good  or  bad,  government  is 
dominant,  the  form  of  the  Irish  state  must  preoccupy 
Ireland  till  it  is  settled.  The  words  of  President 
Wilson  at  Indianapolis  in  191 6,  in  regard  to  Mexico, 
may  be  taken  to  suggest  the  mood  that  should  sur- 
round and  support  the  Irish  people  in  their  demo- 
cratic demands.     "  I  hold  It  as  a  fundamental  prin- 

[  33  ] 


ciple,  and  so  do  you,"  said  President  Wilson,  "  that 
every  people  has  the  right  to  determine  its  own  form 
of  government,  and  until  this  recent  revolution  in 
Mexico,  until  the  end  of  the  Diaz  reign,  eighty  per 
cent  of  the  people  of  Mexico  never  had  a  look-in  In 
determining  who  should  be  their  governors  or  what 
their  government  should  be.  It  is  none  of  my  busi- 
ness and  it  is  none  of  your  business,  how  long  they 
take  in  determining  it.  It  is  none  of  my  business 
and  It  Is  none  of  yours  how  they  go  about  the  busi- 
ness. The  country  Is  theirs,  the  government  is 
theirs  and  the  liberty,  If  they  can  get  It, —  and  God 
speed  them  In  getting  it !  —  is  theirs,  and  so  far  as 
my  Influence  goes,  while  I  am  President,  nobody  shall 
Interfere  with  It."  Between  what  President  Wilson 
has  said  of  the  Filipinos  and  of  the  Mexicans  there 
is  to  be  found  the  root  of  statesmanship  for  Ireland. 
To  attempt  a  lesser  statesmanship  for  Ireland  Is  to 
baulk  the  Irishman  and  to  afflict  the  world.  For  no 
matter  how  we  call  this  maladjustment  "  domestic," 
we  are  relentlessly  reminded  of  Its  consequences 
whenever  the  principles  of  democracy  and  liberty  are 
Invoked.  This  Is  a  world  of  Interwoven  histories, 
multiple  relationships,  complex  purposes.  If  run- 
ning time  did  not  heal  and  sweeten  the  wrongs  of  the 
past,  we  could  not  go  on  living.  But  when  Infringe- 
ments on  democracy  and  liberty  are  written  Into  the 
government  of  a  people,  then  the  fountain-head  itself 
is  the  nurse  of  pollution,  and  nothing  can  heal  Its 
waters  save  drastic  change.  Without  such  correc- 
tion, relationships  all  through  the  world  are  infected 
and  purposes  distorted.  It  Is  Impossible  to  disguise 
so  tragic  a  presence,  to  close  one's  eyes  to  destructive 
injustice  so  stubbornly  unredeemed. 

[34  ] 


PART  II 
CAUSES 

Let  me  speak  to  the  yet  unknowing  world 
How  these  things  came  about:  so  shall  you  hear 
Of  carnal,  bloody  and  unnatural  acts, 
Of  accidental  judgments,  casual  slaughters; 
Of  deaths  put  on  by  cunning  and  forc'd  cause 
And,    in   this   upshot,    purposes   mistook 
Fall'n  on  the  inventors'   heads;  all  this  can   I 
Truly  deliver, 

Hamlet. 


II 

THE  UNWRITTEN  VERSION 

AS   IT   WAS    IN   THE   BEGINNING 

You  cannot  fish  and  cut  bait  at  the  same  time. 
This  is  one  of  the  first  economic  discoveries  that  was 
made  on  the  ancient  coasts  of  Ireland.  Simple  and 
logical  people  solved  this  problem  by  deciding  that 
he  who  fished  should  cut  his  own  bait.  But  life  is 
neither  simple  nor  logical;  and  something  was  soon 
heard  about  the  inequality  of  man,  the  duties  of 
labor,  and  the  rights  of  property. 

You  cannot  eat  your  fish  and  have  it.  This  was 
another  economic  discovery  on  the  Irish  coast. 
Simple  and  logical  people  supposed  that  the  man 
who  ate  his  fish  would  expect  nothing  more.  But 
they  reckoned  without  the  high  devices  of  capital 
and  credit  —  without  wages,  or  rent,  or  interest,  or 
profit,  or  other  disagreeable  factors  in  the  long 
squabble  about  fish. 

Everything,  however,  was  peaceful  at  the  start. 
In  the  good  old  days  of  slavery  men  arranged  so 
that  the  lower  orders  cut  bait  while  the  upper  classes 
fished  —  a  practical  simplification.  It  was  based 
on  the  principle  that  the  faculty  for  producing  is 
unequal.  But  the  faculty  for  being  "  practical  "  is 
also  unequal.  Among  the  slaves  there  were  a  few 
disquieting  creatures  who  had  the  gift  of  imagina- 

[  Zl  ] 


tion.  Imagination  is  the  great  enemy  of  practicality. 
It  occurred  to  these  souls  that,  since  fishing  seemed 
an  agreeable  employment,  cutting  bait  could  not  be 
the  whole  duty  of  man.  This  idea  possessed  its  vic- 
tims like  a  demon,  and  presented  itself  in  new  and 
attractive  disguises.  A  few  weak-minded  fisher- 
men were  inclined  "to  indulge  it,  but  it  was  contrary 
to  the  established  order.  It  was  pronounced  de- 
testable, unreasonable  and  unscientific  by  nearly 
every  member  of  the  fishing  classes.  And  it  was 
rejected  by  a  majority  of  the  slaves  themselves. 

These  latter  slaves  had  always  cut  bait.  Their 
fathers  and  grandfathers  had  cut  bait  before  them. 
They  knew  nothing  of  fishing.  They  felt  unequal  to 
fishing.  Who  were  they,  slimy  smelly  wretches, 
that  they  should  intrude  themselves  on  men  of  real 
attainment?  They  believed  that,  according  to  na- 
ture, they  were  not  intended  to  fish.  They  argued 
that,  though  they  did  not  fish  themselves,  wiser  men 
than  themselves  gave  them  part  of  the  fish  that  they 
had  caught,  and  they  preferred  to  go  on  cutting  bait, 
a  humble  task,  but  useful,  necessary  and  inevitable. 
How,  they  asked,  could  fishing  be  carried  on  at  all 
unless  some  one  cut  bait,  and  was  it  fair  to  ask  fine 
fishermen  to  take  up  a  task  so  menial?  In  this  con- 
clusion they  were  applauded  by  the  fishermen,  and 
rewarded  with  an  extra  sprat.  And  men  came  to 
them  who  never  fished  themselves,  holy  men  in  pet- 
ticoats, and  said:  "  Do  not  set  your  mind  on  fish. 
Fish  is  the  root  of  all  evil.  We,  who  neither  fish 
nor  cut  bait,  but  live  on  the  little  you  provide  for  us, 
we  say  that  pious  resignation  is  the  height  of  phil- 
osophy. At  best,  fishing  is  but  vanity.  Will  a  fish 
add  a  cubit  to  your  stature?     Nay,  nor  two  fishes. 

[  38  ] 


The  fishermen  are  no  happier  than  yourselves. 
They  lay  up  fish,  but  the  worms  devour  it.  What 
is  fish,  in  the  end,  but  an  earthly  possession?  Do 
not  rail  against  fortune.  There  is  great  comfort 
in  cutting  bait,  if  you  but  cut  with  a  willing  heart. 
Therefore,  cut  bait,  and  remember  that  your  humble 
fortune  is  especially  dear  to  providence.  Cut  bait, 
my  children,  and  recollect  that  if  you  are  pure  of 
heart,  all  will  be  added  unto  you.  Thank  you  for 
the  sprat.  Could  you  not  spare  another,  for  the 
conversion  of  the  benighted  heathen?  Thank  you 
again.  Though  It  be  a  small  sprat.  It  is  offered 
with  a  large  heart.  If  you  will  kneel  down,  I  shall 
give  you  my  blessing.  Kiss  this  hand.  God  bless 
you,  my  children.  I  shall  intercede  for  you  with  the 
Almighty.  Be  of  good  cheer.  The  meek  shall  in- 
herit the  sprats." 

THE    DIVISION    OF    LABOR 

Meanwhile  the  discontented  slaves  were  put  down 
as  great  talkers  but  poor  cutters  of  bait.  They  did 
not  do  their  share,  and  could  the  world  go  on  unless 
every  man  did  his  share?  Everywhere  they  were 
frowned  upon,  and  they  received  the  smallest  mess 
of  fish  at  the  new  moon.  And  when  they  went  home 
to  their  wives,  they  had  no  extra  sprat  for  the  stock- 
pot,  and  none  for  the  man  in  the  petticoat.  Some 
of  them  decided,  by  the  help  of  their  wives,  that  this 
was  a  foolish  policy.  It  was  better  to  please  the 
fishermen,  whose  hearts  were  really  in  the  right 
place,  and  secure  the  extra  sprats,  than  to  go  on 
dreaming  of  a  different  world,  a  world  maybe  where 
if  they  tried  to  fish  for  themselves  their  bellies  would 
often  be  empty,  and  no  one  to  thank. 

[39  J 


A  few  of  them,  however,  had  fiery  wives,  who  re- 
viled the  fishermen  and  their  own  husbands,  and 
said:  *'  Is  that  all  you  get  for  cutting  bait?  Why 
don't  you  fish  yourself,  and  you  as  clever  as  the 
world?  What  is  a  little  rubbish  such  as  that  for  the 
like  of  yourself,  a  big,  strapping  man  that  could  eat 
it  in  one  mouthful?  Go  back,  now  and  make  known 
your  wishes,  aye,  and  take  hold  of  a  rod  yourself 
and  split  any  man's  skull  who  will  stop  you.  The 
sprats  are  growing  smaller  with  every  hour,  and  my 
heart  is  broken  trying  to  stay  the  children.  What 
kind  of  men  are  you  at  all,  to  let  those  fat  greedy- 
guts  take  away  all  the  great,  fine  fish,  and  bringing 
home  a  few  brickeens  the  like  of  these,  and  half  of 
them  rotten?  If  it  was  myself  was  talking  to  them, 
I'd  give  them  my  mind,  and  well  they'd  remember  it. 
I'd  lay  hold  of  their  tackle,  and  they  could  strip  me 
to  the  skin  before  they'd  tear  me  away.  Are  my 
children  to  starve  for  the  like  of  those  cormorants, 
and  my  bones  to  be  worn  through  my  flesh,  trying  to 
satisfy  our  crying  needs?  " 

With  these  words  burning  in  their  ears,  the  dis- 
contented slaves  plodded  back  to  work,  and  cut  bait 
with  bitter  scorn.  And  over  them  was  put  a  sturdy 
fellow,  no  grandee  at  all  but  a  slave  himself,  who 
had  cut  bait  mightily  and  was  rewarded  with 
"  power." 

"  Why  don't  you  do  like  myself?  "  he  cried,  large 
with  his  own  sort  of  pride.  "  Let  you  cut  bait  with 
fidelity  and  care,  and  soon  you'll  be  going  around 
like  myself,  no  slave  at  all  but  a  Free  Man,  with  a 
little  pool  of  your  own,  maybe,  and  the  right  to  catch 
sprats  after  working-hours." 

One  or  two  of  them  took  his  words  to  heart.     And 


the  day  they  marched  home  with  their  own  little 
rods,  their  fiery  wives  cried  for  joy,  and  ran  out  to 
fetch  food  and  finery.  They  told  their  children  of 
their  father's  great  sense  and  wisdom.  "  Is  it  give 
in  to  them  he  would,  and  he  the  notable  man !  Pray 
God  you  take  after  himself,  the  pride  of  them  all." 

But  there  still  remained  a  handful  of  wretches 
who  rejected  their  lot,  and  who  wished  to  be  free 
fishermen,  in  their  own  right.  Instead  of  bargain- 
ing for  a  little  rod  of  their  own,  they  wished  every 
man  to  have  his  own  rod,  his  own  fishing  ground,  his 
own  undisputed  life,  or  to  share  all  in  common,  for 
the  good  of  all.  And  when  one  of  them  told  his 
hopes  to  his  wife,  that  wistful  creature  nodded  her 
head. 

"  Oh,  it's  clever  they  think  themselves,  them  that 
flaunt  themselves  now,  after  all  their  salt  tears. 
They  were  the  pity  of  the  world,  till  their  own  bellies 
were  full.  And  now,  where  is  misfortune,  that  they 
should  wring  their  hands?  Faith  we're  fools,  my 
good  man,  that  we  should  be  remembering  the  world, 
and  their  sorrows  so  readily  cured.  But  well  I  know 
yourself.  It's  not  ailing  with  the  hunger  you  are, 
but  the  yoke  of  mankind.  But  what  is  that  yoke  to 
a  man  without  pride?  Many  wear  It  that  don't 
know  it,  and  many  put  off  their  own,  to  put  it  on 
another.  You  wouldn't  be  easy,  and  you  free  itself, 
with  all  that  do  be  slaving  from  morn  till  night. 
Maybe  if  we  were  well  off  ourselves,  we'd  care  no 
more  than  another.  How  would  we,  and  we  stupe- 
fied with  fish?  " 

"  Fish  is  a  good  thing,"  observed  the  famished 
slave,  with  his  eyes  in  the  empty  pot. 

"  A  good  thing  surely,"  said  his  wife,  "  but  when 
[41  J 


you  look  like  that  you  put  me  in  mind  of  a  shark." 

"  I'm  as  hungry  as  a  shark,"  he  answered  with  a 
laugh. 

"  Well,  it's  small  charity  you'll  find  in  an  empty 
pot.  Maybe  it's  mad  we  are  to  be  thinking  of  the 
rights  of  all." 

"Mad  indeed!  Sometimes  I  wonder  I'm  not 
raging  the  world,  the  like  of  a  lion  or  a  wolf  or  a 
beast  of  prey.  'Tis  one  and  the  same  thing,  to  be 
the  slave  of  your  master  or  the  slave  of  your  hun- 
ger. If  you  don't  give  in  to  one,  you'll  give  in  to 
the  other.  But  how  could  I  be  crawling  now,  and 
I  after  saying  what  I  said?  Ah,  it's  too  proud  I 
am  for  a  man  that  must  eat." 

"  Is  it  proud  you  call  yourself,  and  you  pining 
only  to  be  free?  No  one  will  see  you  crawl,  my 
honest  man,  or  hear  a  sorry  word  from  your  lips. 
Let  you  be  off  now,  and  find  others  to  take  sides  with 
you.  Whatever's  the  outcome,  you  must  fight  or 
starve." 

"  Some  that  do  love  to  work,"  said  the  man  as 
he  stood  up,  "  do  say  it's  only  lazy  men  do  be  talk- 
ing of  freedom.  Sure  the  fishermen  do  be  slaving 
itself,  they  say,  and  it's  right  and  proper  to  be  at 
it  night  and  morn." 

"  Aye,  the  poor  creatures,"  quoth  his  wife,  press- 
ing him  to  the  door.  "  The  fishermen  make  great 
hardship  of  their  own  work,  but  who  sees  them 
changing  places?  It's  the  like  of  those  humble  peo- 
ple the  fishermen  do  love.  Always  taking  the  rem- 
nants, and  they  worn  to  a  shred.  They're  the  model 
kind,  no  doubt,  and  they'll  do  what  they're  told. 
But  you  may  thank  God  you  didn't  marry  a  mouse 
the  like  of  that,  or  you'd  be  flying  in  the  hills." 

[42  ] 


THE    COMING   OF   THE    DANES 

And  do  you  suppose  the  free  fishermen,  who  doled 
out  the  sprats,  were  In  love  with  threshing  the 
waters?  It  wasn't  long  before  they  saw  that  if  they 
could  catch  fish  without  cutting  bait,  they  could  have 
fish  without  catching  them.  Soon  they  multiplied 
the  slaves  with  the  rods,  taking  most  for  themselves, 
and  started  building  long  galleys  out  of  timber  from 
the  woods.  Then  shortly  they  were  off  in  high 
ships,  armed  with  javelins  and  shields,  looking  for 
a  world  where  fish  can  be  had  without  drudgery. 
And  they  found  that  fish  in  other  parts  belonged  to 
free  men  like  themselves.  Chieftains  they  called 
themselves  now,  and  they  picked  out  the  best  bait- 
cutters  to  work  their  high  ships  and  long  galleys  for 
them,  and  leap  out  at  other  bait-cutters  in  distant 
places,  and  cut  off  their  heads  with  sharpened 
swords.  It  was  necessary  to  do  that,  to  have  fish 
without  drudgery. 

The  poor  slaves  at  home  heard  fine  tales  of  these 
exploits.  They  got  tired  cutting  bait,  and  grew  wild 
to  cut  heads.  Among  them  went  some  of  the 
wretched  slaves,  glad  to  find  a  new  task  more  befit- 
ting a  man.  They  did  not  mind  the  havoc  they 
played  in  distant  places.  Their  fishermen  told  them 
that  these  other  fishermen  were  cruel  and  treacher- 
ous barbarians,  who  would  let  no  one  fish  only  them- 
selves, and  who  ought  to  be  put  down.  So  put  down 
they  were  for  the  time  being,  and  the  side  that  won 
took  all  the  fish  that  was  cured  in  the  distant  places, 
and  for  a  time  all  had  reward  for  their  pains,  ex- 
cept the  men  whose  heads  were  severed  from  their 
bodies, 

[  43  ] 


But  when  they  returned  to  their  own  home,  an 
awful  sight  was  to  meet  their  eyes,  for  while  they 
were  gone  in  their  high  ships,  other  strong  men  of 
the  sea  had  ridden  into  their  harbor  and  stolen  their 
own  fish,  and  made  free  with  their  wives,  and  de- 
stroyed their  tackle  and  their  homes,  and  put  their 
slaves  to  the  sword.  Only  a  few  were  escaped,  into 
the  woods  —  and  among  them  some  of  the  discon- 
tented ones  who  had  always  wanted  to  fish.  At  this 
sorrowful  sight,  the  chieftains  took  a  dreadful  oath. 
They  called  together  all  their  sons  and  overseers 
and  slaves,  and  gave  power  to  the  best  among  them 
to  arm  and  drill,  and  swore  mighty  vengeance  in  the 
name  of  all  alike.  And  all  but  a  few  of  the  discon- 
tented ones  seized  upon  their  arms,  and  made  cause 
with  their  chieftains,  and  began  to  hate  the  treach- 
erous barbarians,  who  had  caused  all  their  ills. 
The  chieftains  gave  heavy  shining  swords  to  some  of 
these  rebellious  slaves  and  named  them  captains  or 
officers,  and  only  a  few  of  them  were  left  without 
any  swords  or  spears,  for  fear  they  wouldn't  know 
how  rightly  to  use  them. 

THE    END    OF    THE    CLANS 

All  through  the  wars  the  same  things  happened. 
Each  time  the  chieftains  won,  they  had  their  belly- 
ful. Each  time  they  lost,  they  took  dreadful  oaths. 
Meanwhile,  the  whole  duty  of  fishing  fell  to  a 
quieter  class  of  men  and  if  they  said  aught  about 
having  to  do  nothing  but  fish  and  cut  bait  they  were 
goaded  by  the  chieftain's  spear  and  told  they  must 
do  their  duty  In  this  world,  for  all  had  to  be  pinched 
on  account  of  the  wars.  But  In  spite  of  the  double 
need  for  fishing,  so  that  brave  men  could  sail  hither 

[44  ] 


and  thither  with  spear  and  torch,  there  were  still 
men  who  did  not  choose  to  cut  bait  or  to  cut  heads, 
and  who  hated  the  chieftains  as  much  as  the  foreign- 
ers, and  sometimes  more.  They  did  not  believe  the 
foreigners  were  cruel  and  treacherous  barbarians, 
but  only  slaves  like  themselves,  except  for  a  few 
swaggering  chieftains  who  wanted  the  world.  They 
did  not  want  the  world.  But  they  wanted  their 
share  of  their  toils,  not  to  spend  it  in  high  ships  and 
bright  shields,  but  to  live  according  to  their  own 
flaming  imagination.  And  when  the  holy  men  in 
petticoats  heard  their  murmurings  the  big  majority 
cursed  them,  and  put  their  blessing  on  the  chieftains, 
who  gave  them  silks  and  chalices  instead  of  sprats, 
and  ounces  of  silver  and  ounces  of  gold.  When 
they  were  old  men  the  chieftains  often  retired  among 
the  holy  men  In  black  coats,  and  gave  themselves  up 
to  penance,  for  they  had  bad  dreams  of  their  gory 
deeds,  and  their  high  ships  swimming  in  blood. 
Their  penance  was  a  beautiful  sight  to  behold,  after 
a  lusty  life,  and  gave  great  edification.  They  were 
mightier  in  their  penance  than  a  slave  in  his  purity, 
won  to  God  after  a  hot  career  of  sin.  The  slaves 
bowed  before  these  venerable  chieftains,  and  went 
on  with  the  fishing. 

THE    NORMANS    ARRIVE 

But  there  was  trouble  in  store  for  all,  for  the 
gentle  could  no  more  be  contented  than  the  simple, 
and  fell  out  among  themselves.  The  wife  of  one 
of  them  lost  her  heart  to  another  chieftain,  a  man 
of  fire  and  mettle,  and  he  bore  her  from  her  hus- 
band like  a  hostage  of  war.  To  get  back  his  wife, 
though  she  hated  the  sight  of  him,  this  chieftain 

[  45  ] 


went  over  the  seas  and  returned  with  a  new  batch  of 
chieftains,  great  marauders  and  fighting  men;  and 
when  these  foreign  warriors  found  how  easy  it  was 
to  cope  with  chieftains  discordant  in  themselves,  they 
turned  on  all  alilce,  those  that  sought  them  and  those 
that  fought  them,  and  slew  them  right  and  left  with 
new  instruments  that  none  had  knowledge  of  but 
themselves.  And  when  they  conquered,  they  took 
care  to  be  friends  among  themselves,  and  to  bind 
all  to  the  fishing  for  their  own  use  and  gain. 

So  in  the  end  it  was  the  foreign  chieftains  who 
had  most  say  as  to  the  fishing,  and  they  swept  the 
slaves  into  the  woods  to  starve,  without  a  single 
sprat  to  eat,  only  berries  and  grass.  Then  were  the 
discontented  ones  perplexed.  For  had  not  their 
own  chieftains  given  them  a  little  fish,  though  it  was 
rotten? 

Here  they  were  together  a  common  herd,  chiefs 
and  priests  among  them,  tamed  like  robins  in  the 
snow.  Their  high  nobles,  men  who  were  used  to 
castles  and  grand  banquets  and  tasselled  pillows  in 
their  bed,  hunted  for  nuts  like  gossoons,  and  scooped 
water  In  their  hands.  And  the  priests  that  chanted 
songs  In  the  lofty  abbeys  and  chapels  said  mass  un- 
der dripping  boughs  and  knelt  in  the  mould.  Their 
chiefs  and  priests  were  flailed  before  their  eyes. 
The  one  roof  was  over  them  all,  and  the  one  for- 
tune afflicted  them.  To  see  the  high  brought  low, 
and  foreigners  revel  in  the  land,  quenched  the  anger 
in  the  hearts  of  the  discontented.  Their  wrath 
against  the  foreigners  outshone  their  wrath  against 
the  chieftains  like  sunlight  robbing  a  candle  of  its 
flame.  And  they  banded  all  together,  to  harry  the 
new  settlers  in  their  comings  and  goings. 

[  46  ] 


THE    CONFISCATIONS 

It  was  long  they  were  hunted,  in  terror  of  their 
lives,  seeking  out  caves  and  dingles  and  lone  crevices 
in  the  hills,  and  peering  out  at  prancing  horsemen 
from  the  screen  of  the  woods.  All  were  alike  in 
these  days,  the  one  bond  between  them,  and  that  a 
thrall.  The  holy  men  were  bare  to  the  knees,  and 
they  daren't  appear  in  the  open  world,  in  fear  of 
wrath  and  persecution.  Proud  foreign  men  stalked 
up  and  down  the  land,  hardly  fishing  themselves,  but 
crying  vengeance  on  all.  It  was  long  before  the 
old  class  of  men  began  to  fight  back,  one  by  one,  the 
hair  matted  in  their  eyes,  and  nothing  on  them  but 
the  skin  of  a  dead  sheep.  The  foreign  chieftains 
twitted  them  with  their  empty  hands  and  empty 
bellies,  crawling  out  into  the  sun  with  only  a  stave 
for  their  defence.  Weeds  grew  in  ploughed  fields 
in  those  days,  and  burdocks  and  thistles  ate  up  the 
earth.  And  the  hearts  of  men  were  a  waste  like 
the  land.  They  were  pitiful  men  before  the  world. 
After  raging  war  from  year's  end  to  year's  end.  It 
was  the  chiefs  themselves  who  lastly  were  proud  to 
be  let  cut  bait  at  all,  and  their  wives  proud  to  have 
them.  And  the  discontented  slaves  hovered  In  the 
woods,  catching  a  trout  with  their  hands,  or  snaring 
a  rabbit  at  the  dawn  of  day. 

But  as  time  went  on,  the  new  chieftains  devised 
the  old  plan.  They  gave  back  a  little  fishing  rod 
here  and  a  little  fishing  rod  there,  and  they  set  the 
clever  among  the  simple  to  keep  account  of  the  rest. 
And  that  was  the  cause  of  new  perplexity.  In  the 
days  that  all  were  hunted  alike,  every  man  worked 
with  every  other  man,  and  one  watched  while  an- 
other slept.     But  now  it  was  a  scramble  to  see  who'd 

[  47  ] 


be  taken  back.  It  was  men  fighting  among  each 
other  to  see  who'd  cut  bait,  and  the  men  who  held 
out  to  be  let  fish  in  the  old  way  were  laughed  to 
scorn.  Whether  you  fished  or  cut  bait,  it  was  the 
same  thing.  Away  up  at  the  top  of  all  were  great 
nobles  in  castles,  men  who  never  soiled  their  hands 
with  common  toil,  fine  idle  men  who  used  mincing 
words,  and  spoke  about  government  and  order,  and 
gave  no  one  the  time  of  day,  and  swam  the  sea  in 
ships  that  had  silken  sails.  And  next  to  them,  for- 
eign chieftains  as  well,  were  the  strong  rulers  of 
the  people.  These  never  did  a  hand's  turn  either, 
only  by  way  of  fun,  but  rode  hither  and  thither,  tell- 
ing the  fishers  how  to  fish,  and  the  bait-cutters  how 
to  bait.  Deep  new-fangled  dodges  they  had,  nets 
and  fancy  hooks  and  colored  bits  of  tin  that  looked 
like  flies,  and  they  laughed  at  the  old  ways  of  cut- 
ting bait.  "  God  help  the  creatures,"  said  they, 
"  it's  in  the  bogs  they  were  born,  where  you  fish 
with  a  berry  on  a  thread.  It's  a  poor  ignorant  class 
of  men  we  have  to  deal  with.  We  can't  trust  them 
with  our  fancy  contrivances."  And  when  the  fish 
were  caught,  they  cured  it  all  for  themselves,  except 
a  little  they  left  to  the  fishermen,  and  a  few  handfuls 
for  the  laboring  men,  and  they  gave  the  big  balance 
to  the  high-up  noble  people,  with  the  extra  sprats 
for  a  new  kind  of  foreign  holy  men  who  came  over 
the  sea.  The  discontented  slaves  couldn't  tell  what 
was  in  it.  More  fish  were  caught  than  ever  before, 
but  the  land  was  a  land  of  horrors.  Nobles  boast- 
ing and  carousing  at  one  end,  and  at  the  other  skele- 
tons creeping  to  and  fro,  as  quiet  as  ghosts,  and  the 
eyes  burning  in  their  heads.  But  v/hen  they  whis- 
pered it  over  In  twos  and  threes,   and  bent  the?' 

[48  ] 


thoughts  in  desperation,  the  strong  rulers  heard  tell 
of  their  doings,  and  cut  off  their  share.  "  Don't  be 
annoying  us  with  your  mischief,"  they  said,  "  or  we 
may  be  compelled  to  be  harsh." 

THE    NATIVES    REBEL 

It  was  a  sorrowful  land,  where  so  few  were  in 
ease  and  so  many  in  want,  and  the  people's  hearts 
were  broken  with  the  strong  rulers  up  and  down. 
If  they  didn't  fish,  they  starved;  but  the  more  they 
caught  the  more  they  had  to  give  in.  It  was  like 
baling  the  ocean  with  a  cup.  "  We're  slaves,  so  we 
are,"  said  the  old  chieftains  themselves;  "it's  the 
pity  of  God  we  ever  asked  those  robbers  to  come 
over.  But  how  can  we  get  rid  of  them  now,  and 
they  cemented  in  our  forts?  Has  every  man  among 
them  a  heart  of  stone?  Look  at  their  innocent 
children,  and  they  smiling  in  the  turreted  windows. 
Little  they  know  the  villainy  of  their  murdering 
kin.  They're  foreign  to  the  bone,  when  all  is  said 
and  done,  and  no  hope  of  them  at  all.  Let  us  all 
band  together  now,  and  destroy  these  raving 
wolves." 

*'  Is  it  fight  them  we  will,  and  they  armed  to  the 
eyes?  " 

"  No,  but  kill  them  and  they  riding  on  the  roads, 
or  standing  on  their  steps  itself.  How  else  will  we 
dislodge  them,  and  they  glued  to  the  land?  Didn't 
we  offer  to  fight  them,  and  get  swept  by  their  can- 
non? Is  it  with  naked  hands  we  will  rise  against 
their  murdering  steel?  " 

At  these  glowering  words,  the  discontented  men 
took  heart,  and  rightly.  And  the  only  ones  who 
cared  nothing  about  all  this  talk  were  sturdy  for- 

[  49  ] 


eign  fellows  who  used  to  fish  for  the  nobles,  but  who 
had  saved  up  from  the  start,  and  at  last  paid  for 
their  freedom  with  fish.  A  few  of  the  old  stock 
tried  to  do  the  same,  but  in  most  cases  the  price  was 
too  high.  And  this  made  them  doubly  desperate. 
But  their  own  holy  men  in  black  coats  were  back 
in  the  land,  taking  what  sprats  they  could  get,  sing- 
ing hymns  in  bare  white-washed  chapels,  and  thank- 
ing God  for  his  mercies.  They  thought  no  more  of 
the  wet  woods  where  they  were  chased,  and  grassy 
banks  for  altars.  "  Is  it  black  murder  you  will 
commit,  and  ye  back  fishing  again?  Let  you  ask 
for  justice,  and  God  will  reward  your  patience  and 
virtue.  What  is  it  is  in  you,  to  make  you  slaughter 
your  fellow-man?  Cannot  ye  be  contented  to  work 
out  your  salvation  in  the  holy  way  appointed? 
How  can  we  bring  these  stout  foreigners  to  God,  if 
ye  make  their  lives  uneasy  and  perplexed?  The 
ways  of  the  Almighty  are  strange,  but  His  mercy  is 
manifold.  Are  we  not  the  best  friends  you  ever 
had?  Will  you  go  against  our  advices?  When 
you  were  chieftains  in  the  land,  didn't  we  soothe 
down  the  slaves  for  ye,  and  keep  your  property  se- 
cure? Is  this  the  way  ye  pay  us?  Help  us  to  drive 
out  those  black  devils  that  have  seized  the  old  ab- 
beys on  us,  and  put  us  back  where  we  belong,  and 
all  will  be  well.  Aren't  those  false  holy  men  tak- 
ing the  bit  out  of  your  mouth?  We'll  educate  you 
and  take  care  of  you,  and  give  you  the  right  advices. 
Is  it  in  white-washed  chapels  we  must  pray,  and 
those  idle  rogues  in  our  great  churches,  with  their 
bastards  at  their  knees?  Be  you  contented  with 
your  own  lot,  and  join  manfully  in  getting  justice 
for  ourselves.     Our  faithful  flock,  follow  where  we 

[  50  ] 


lead,  like  the  good  sheep  that  you  are.  Don't  go 
raging  for  a  Httle  temporal  power  that  may  prove 
your  destruction,  but  attend  to  your  duties  and  be 
regular  with  your  sprats.  It's  discontent  has  the 
world  where  it  is,  and  the  mad  desire  for  upheaval 
and  change.  Once  we  dislodge  those  villainous 
usurpers  that  have  stolen  our  chapels,  you  will  be 
able  to  pray  at  your  ease  In  fine  lofty  buildings  and 
store  up  rewards  for  yourselves  in  the  life  that  is  to 
come." 

UNDER   THE    UNION 

Most  of  the  old  stock  paid  heed  to  these  words, 
and  started  to  put  out  the  other  holy  men  that  came 
over  the  sea.  In  the  meantime  the  nobles  took  so 
much  fish  in  the  lean  years  that  the  slaves  died  by 
the  hundred,  and  the  thousand,  and  the  ten  thou- 
sand, and  the  hundred  thousand,  and  the  million. 
The  discontented  slaves  that  were  left  after  this 
trouble  kept  their  minds  to  themselves,  but  they  were 
thinking  how  to  dislodge  the  great  nobles  up  above, 
and  the  powerful  rulers  that  lived  behind  high  walls, 
and  the  men  in  black  coats  who  weren't  holy  men  at 
all  but  stayed  awake  In  little  barracks  at  every  cross- 
roads. The  discontented  ones  began  to  haunt  the 
woody  glens  again,  but  It  wasn't  rabbits  they  tried 
to  snare  this  time,  but  solitary  grandees  riding  airily 
by.  And  soon  It  was  the  free  who  were  slaves  in 
their  castles,  and  the  slaves  who  were  free  in  their 
crannies,  and  the  foreign  chieftains  were  sick  of 
being  trapped  on  the  road,  and  meeting  bloody  death 
in  the  bye-ways. 

After  a  while  the  strong  rulers  put  their  heads 
together,  and  they  made  a  new  deal.     What  they 

[  51  ] 


liked  was  the  sturdy  fellows  who  paid  for  their  free- 
dom in  fish.  Next,  they  liked  the  men  who  tried  to 
buy  their  freedom,  and  who  gave  a  good  share  for 
their  rods.  What  they  hated  was  the  fellows  who 
rotted  and  died.  But  these  grew  so  many  that  they 
had  to  take  action,  for  the  sake  of  peace.  The  old 
stock  were  to  be  let  fish  again  in  the  old  way,  after 
they  promised  to  give  a  portion  to  the  nobles,  for  a 
long  term  of  years.  The  little  share  for  the  nobles 
was  just  to  get  rid  of  them,  a  trifle  in  the  end. 
There  were  to  be  no  slaves  any  more  at  all,  they 
said,  all  free  men  cutting  their  own  bait,  and  fishing 
at  will.  But  it  was  only  the  foreign  chieftains,  they 
said,  who  could  be  trusted  to  make  rules  and  regu- 
lations in  a  land  so  discontented.  The  strong  rulers 
would  have  to  busy  themselves  here  and  there,  to 
secure  freedom  in  the  land. 

The  sturdy  fellows  who  were  put  in  place  by  the 
foreign  rulers  were  glad  of  this  rule,  but  the  old 
stock  were  sorry.  They  looked  to  the  fishing  in 
high  glee,  but  they  wanted  no  foreign  rulers.  The 
discontented  men  did  not  know  what  to  think. 
When  they  came  to  ask  for  their  fishing  rods  at  the 
time  appointed,  many  were  held  back,  and  there 
weren't  enough  to  go  around.  And  they  found  that 
every  man  had  to  have  fish  put  by  before  he  would 
be  given  a  rod  all  his  own. 

"  It  was  hard  for  me  to  save  any  fish  out  of  the 
little  I  got,"  said  one  of  the  men  with  empty  hands. 

"Hard,  is  it?"  said  one  of  the  sturdy  fellows. 
"And  how  did  I  save?  It's  an  ignorant  and  help- 
less man  you  are,  I'm  thinking,  with  your  hardships 
and  all.  It's  weak  you  are,  and  wanting  in  charac- 
ter, to  be  complaining  of  men  who  catch  a  thousand 

[  52  ] 


to  your  one.  Sure  it's  right  you  should  be  a  slave, 
if  you  don't  do  your  share  of  work.  Don't  you 
know  that  men  have  great  tackle  and  appliances  this 
day,  and  that  such  men  can  catch  more  fish  in  a  min- 
ute than  you'd  catch  in  a  year?  If  it's  freedom  you 
want,  let  you  save  fish  and  buy  it,  and  not  be  begging 
like  a  tramp  that's  too  lazy  to  work." 

Home  to  his  wife  went  the  discontented  slave 
with  the  secret  of  freedom. 

"  Now  if  I  was  a  smart  and  adaptable  man,  God 
help  me,  and  a  steady  man  like  themselves,"  he 
said,  "  I'd  be  just  as  good  as  they  are,  and  able  to 
hold  my  own.  Sure  it's  right  I  should  be  a  slave, 
If  I  don't  earn  a  big  share  of  fish." 

"  Is  that  the  way  It  Is,  Indeed?"  asked  his  wife. 
''  Then  if  that's  the  way  you  think,  what  sense  Is  in 
talking  of  being  free?  What  started  you  on  justice 
at  all,  with  your  new  talk  of  taking  all  you  can  grab? 
Musha,  you  have  my  heart  broken  with  your  non- 
sense. Did  I  ever  put  you  up  to  tricks  In  the  old 
days  to  fill  the  pot?" 

"  Never  in  the  world." 

"  Did  I  ever  tell  you  to  bring  home  a  great  share, 
In  spite  of  them  all?  " 

"  Well,  no,  you  didn't." 

"  And  who  told  you  'twas  wilful  and  lazy  you 
were,  not  to  grab  all  you  could,  but  some  old  chief- 
tamy  fellow  who  wanted  you  to  act  like  himself?  " 

"  Hold  on  now  yourself!  Did  I  ever  hang  over 
the  empty  pot,  and  refuse  to  go  work?  " 

"  You  didn't,  my  dear,  for  it's  well  you  knew  I 
wouldn't  let  you.  Always  I  was  wishful  to  have 
you  work,  fish  your  fair  share,  and  cut  bait  as  well. 
But  did  I  ever  say  'twas  the  man  who  grabs  the 

[  53  ] 


most  should  be  the  free  man,  be  he  foreign  or 
homely,  gentle  or  simple,  by  new  rule  or  old?  Did 
I  ever  spur  you  to  send  other  men  to  work,  and  have 
you  loll  at  home  at  your  ease,  like  a  duke  in  his 
castle?  If  you  were  ignorant  itself,  isn't  it  a  com- 
mon hardship  It  would  be,  and  no  cause  for  priva- 
tion? Did  I  ever  hold  back  on  the  poor  helpless 
children,  though  we  went  hungry  ourselves?  Did 
you  ever  let  them  go  wanting,  though  you  went  out 
of  the  house  with  your  belly  tightened  to  your  spine? 
Many's  the  woman  would  have  starved  the  children 
to  feed  you,  but  is  it  starve  the  creatures  I  would, 
and  they  without  strength  or  wile?  Was  it  heading 
for  the  great  castles  we  were,  that  we  should  grab 
night  and  day,  and  give  thanks  to  none?  Many  a 
woman  sat  on  that  stool  and  was  as  wise  as  Solomon 
himself  about  the  manner  of  life.  Live  in  a  castle, 
and  you're  free,  they  said.  If  you  can't  live  in  a 
castle,  let  you  rule  for  one  who  does.  If  you  can't 
rule  for  one  who  does,  let  you  fish  to  catch  all.  If 
you  can't  fish,  let  you  cut  more  bait  than  the  others, 
and  win  your  way  to  the  top.  If  you  can't  cut  bait, 
you  may  starve  and  welcome  !  Aye,  it's  willing  they 
were  to  see  people  starve,  and  lay  blame  on  all  who 
didn't  grab  like  the  rest.  Aye,  we're  all  grabbers, 
they  said,  whether  we  be  grabbing  over  the  counters 
or  at  the  fairs,  or  on  plates  during  mass.  Didn't 
you  grab  himself,  they  said,  when  you  were  wither- 
ing a  virgin?  We  all  grab,  they  said,  and  more 
fools  if  we  don't.  And  they  made  out  that  we  were 
only  jealous  of  the  fisherman,  when  we  spoke  of 
justice  and  the  like  of  that.  Maybe  It  was  jealous 
you  were,  after  all,  and  not  fit  to  do  your  share?  " 
"  Well  you  know  I  did  my  share,  and  did  it  with- 
[  54] 


out  reward.  If  it  was  jealous  I  was,  I'd  be  in  a 
high  place  myself,  taking  the  whip  to  poor  men, 
and  blaming  them  for  being  lazy," 

"  Well,  how  do  we  know  that  It  isn't  laziness  is 
back  of  it  all?" 

"  Aye,  that's  what  the  strong  rulers  say,  and  they 
making  much  of  government.  Sure  I  know  nothing 
of  government.  It's  the  high  science  of  all.  I  lis- 
ten to  them  now,  with  all  their  fine  rules.  I  must 
cut  a  great  share  of  bait,  they  say,  because  I'm  a 
lazy  man,  and  then  they'll  be  kind  to  me.  They'll 
cure  me  when  I'm  sick,  and  employ  me  when  I'm 
idle,  and  support  me  when  I'm  old.  But  isn't  It 
the  grabbers  always  had  the  government,  and  if 
they  pension  me  itself,  mustn't  I  cut  bait  a  long 
life-time,  that  they  may  reap  the  reward?  I'm  no 
lazy  man,  God  knows,  for  what  is  a  lazy  man  but  a 
grabber,  be  he  rich  or  poor?  But  don't  I  look  to 
be  lazy,  in  the  sight  of  men  who  own  the  big  ma- 
chines and  have  a  claim  on  every  fish,  before  it  is 
spawned?  " 

"  Well,  what  if  you  do.  Itself  ?  You  always  made 
out  you  wanted  to  be  free,  and  now  you  want  to  be 
using  a  lot  of  queer  machinery,  though  it's  the  men 
who  own  the  machinery  are  taking  the  fish,  and  not 
yourself  at  all.  If  it's  machinery  you  want,  and 
not  freedom,  fight  for  it  and  welcome.  But  you're 
cutting  bait  just  the  same,  though  you  be  using  a 
great  machine.  And  it's  eating  fish  without  earning 
it  those  great  men  are,  though  they  own  machines 
itself.  What  difference  is  in  it,  if  you  grab  with 
your  hands,  or  you  grab  with  a  machine?  You're 
as  big  a  grabber  as  ever,  though  you  work  night  and 
day." 

[55  ] 


"  It's  a  power  of  words  you're  talking,  but  I'm 
tormented  to  understand  you.  In  the  old  days  we 
knew  our  own  minds.  There  was  common  robbery 
before  our  eyes,  and  not  a  man  to  disguise  it.  One 
set  of  us  was  slaves,  and  another  set  free,  and  we 
wanted  to  see  all  made  free,  to  live  out  our  own 
lives.  But  it's  different  this  day,  with  a  new  great 
class  of  men  in  the  world,  that  have  us  all  by  the 
heels.  In  the  old  days,  which  of  us  made  the  fish 
in  the  sea?  None  of  us  made  it,  only  nature  itself, 
and  we  took  from  nature  what  we  needed  to  live. 
And  I  was  supposed  to  take  enough  for  yourself  and 
the  children,  and  the  old  man  by  the  hob,  lest  any 
of  us  starve.  But  that  wouldn't  do  the  big  fellows. 
Sure  it's  like  sparrows  we  were  after  a  while,  fight- 
ing over  the  same  worm,  and  the  biggest  one  getting 
the  biggest.  And  then  the  big  fellows  made  ma- 
chines that  could  catch  a  million  in  a  minute,  and  if 
it's  free  to  fish  we  were  itself,  we  couldn't  beat  the 
machine.  And  then,  do  you  mind,  they  took  our 
fish  and  gave  us  tokens,  and  the  more  fish  was  caught 
in  the  world,  the  less  any  one  of  them  was  worth. 
And  when  it  came  to  salting  them  or  hauling  them, 
the  same  curse  was  in  it.  They  own  everything  in 
the  world,  and  it's  by  their  leave  we  live  itself,  let 
alone  walk  the  roads.  Maybe  it's  better  out  of  the 
country  we  are,  but  I  hear  it's  the  same  wherever 
you  go.  It's  all  grabbed  up,  and  there's  nothing  for 
the  naked  new-born  child  but  what  his  father 
grabbed  already,  or  what  the  grabbers  have  a  mind 
to  let  him  earn." 

*'  And  what  would  we  leave  our  own  country  for, 
in  the  name  of  God?  Is  it  like  the  fox  we  are, 
driven  to  hide  in  the  furze?  " 

[  56  ] 


MORE   REBELLION 

But  when  the  discontented  man  spoke  of  freedom 
abroad,  the  people  made  out  that  all  devilment  was 
due  to  foreign  rule.  "  We  must  fight  again,"  they 
said,  "  it's  foreign  rule  is  the  curse.  We  were  all 
slaves  together,  harried  in  the  woods,  and  we'll  be 
slaves  till  the  end  unless  we  fight.  Stand  by  your 
leaders,  good  men,  and  soon  the  old  stock  will  be 
free  in  the  land." 

The  unhappy  wretch  was  mystified.  Well  he 
knew  the  high-up  noble  people,  and  he  rejoiced  at 
their  downfall.  But  wasn't  it  the  home  people  who 
used  to  have  him  cutting  bait,  and  there  plenty 
of  fish  in  the  sea?  Still,  he  took  heart  at  the 
thought  of  freedom,  and  started  drilling  in  the  bye- 
ways  and  the  woods,  with  the  thought  of  freedom  in 
his  soul. 

And  when  he  told  his  wife  the  new  turn  of  things 
she  smiled  a  thin  smile. 

"  So  we're  all  to  have  our  rights!  Glory  be  to 
God,  the  fine  men  that's  living  these  days,  with  the 
end  of  all  trouble  and  care.  See  what's  in  the  pot, 
my  darling  man.     I'm  a  little  faint  with  the  news." 

"  The  pot  is  empty." 

"  Look  in  it  again,  dear.  It  can't  be  empty  in 
times  the  like  of  this."^ 

"  Is  it  tormenting  me  you  are?  Is  it  the  whole 
w6rld  changed  you  want,  between  day  and  dark? 
How  would  it  be  full,  and  foreign  rule  in  the  land?  " 

"  Don't  scowl  at  me  the  like  of  that,  frightening 
your  poor  wife.  How  can  I  tell  what's  in  your 
mind,  and  you  off  drilling  in  the  woods,  terrifying  the 
poor  birds  with  your  woodeny  gun.     It's  only  think- 

[  57  ] 


Ing  they  were  so  mad  about  you  that  they  might  be 
after  filling  the  pot." 

"  Who's  mad  about  me,  Fd  like  to  know,  and  I 
friendless  only  for  my  neighbors?  " 

"  Who's  mad  about  you?  Isn't  it  craving  to  get 
you  justice  they  are,  the  leaders  in  the  land?  " 

"  Aye,  it's  freeing  the  nation  some  of  them  are, 
and  much  too  busy  to  bother  with  the  likes  of  me. 
I  tell  you  this  is  the  time  we'll  fight  like  men. 
We'll  — " 

"  Fight,  indeed.  It's  well  I  know  you'll  fight, 
and  leave  me  here  to  myself,  with  my  sorrow  and 
sense.  A  '  free  nation,'  God  help  us,  and  your  own 
chieftains  the  stern  taskmasters  in  the  land.  I  hear 
them  with  their  talk  about  foreign  rulers  and  the 
rest.  And  what  voice  will  they  give  you,  I  wonder, 
in  the  rule  that  is  to  come?  The  strong  men  go 
prancing  up  and  down  today,  and  they  fat  up  to  the 
eyes,  but  they  tell  us  that  foreign  rule  has  them  de- 
molished, and  we're  lucky  to  be  let  live.  Is  it  any- 
thing different  we'll  get  from  the  old  stock,  in  the 
end  of  all?  We're  the  sparrows  that  can't  fall  to 
earth,  a  single  one  of  us,  without  a  sparrow-hawk 
falling  on  top  of  us." 

"  I'm  afraid  you're  growing  bitter  with  the  weight 
of  your  cares.  Aren't  we  all  the  one  people? 
Won't  we  be  a  free  nation?  " 

"  Yes,  we're  all  the  one  people,  indeed,  so  long 
as  you're  contented  with  an  empty  pot.  Sometimes 
I  do  be  wondering  if  it's  in  this  world  you  belong  at 
all,  or  some  fairy  place  of  your  own.  Once  I  was 
like  yourself,  with  great  faith  in  our  own  stock,  and 
believing  they  had  justice  in  their  minds.  But  it's 
strange  the  double  meanings  of  the  simplest  words. 

[  58  ] 


Our  justice  is  a  share  in  toil  and  reward.  But  their 
justice  is  the  bargain  they  drive,  and  making  you 
live  up  to  the  bargain.  They  preach  freedom  for 
us  all,  but  they  only  act  it  for  themselves.  It's  men 
of  our  own  blood  that  do  be  grabbing  more,  because 
we're  grabbing  less.  A  free  nation,  in  throth,  with 
every  man  rivalling  every  other  man,  and  flourish- 
ing chieftains  of  our  own." 

"  Maybe  we'll  have  rules  of  our  own,  that'll  get 
us  justice  for  all.  There's  no  hope  in  those  foreign 
blackguards.  I'll  stand  by  my  own,  and  fight  for 
freedom  against  all." 

"  And  what  about  cutting  bait,  I'd  like  to  know? 
You've  forgot  your  old  story  about  fighting  for  your 
rights." 

"  I'll  have  my  rights  when  we're  free." 

"  No,  my  gallant  man,  you'll  be  just  as  far  from 
justice  as  you  were  before." 

"  Perhaps  there's  no  such  thing  as  justice.  God 
knows  what  put  it  in  my  head.  Sometimes  it's  like 
a  dream  a  million  years  old.  I'll  be  content  if  the 
country  is  free." 

"  Well,  then,  I  won't  be  content.  Before  the 
country  was  born,  I  was  born.  We'll  be  all  one  peo- 
ple when  we've  the  same  justice  in  mind.  Let  you 
free  the  nation,  and  welcome,  but  remember  your 
own  words.  It's  justice  I'm  dreaming  of,  and  my 
dream  is  a  million  years  old." 


[  59  ] 


Ill 

AN  ECONOMIC  APPROACH 

THE    EFFECT   ON    IRELAND 

1  Ills,  1  am  persuaded,  is  the  kind  of  preamble 
that  Irish  history  calls  for.  Other  considerations 
do  weigh  against  and  at  times  overbalance  the  eco- 
nomic one  —  the  consideration  of  public  policy 
mainly  with  a  view  to  the  safety  of  the  realm;  its 
consideration  with  a  view  to  a  select  pursuit  of  eter- 
nal salvation;  and  its  consideration  with  a  view  to 
national  characteristics.  The  safety  of  the  realm, 
it  is  perfectly  clear,  is  a  transcendent  issue;  but  the 
kind  of  unhappiness  that  befell  Ireland  did  not  pri- 
marily hinge  upon  this  issue,  and  it  can  be  corrected 
without  seriously  affecting  it.  The  clash  of  reli- 
gions is  tragic  but  remediable.  Neither  Catholicism 
nor  Presbyterianism  excludes  the  unity  and  happi- 
ness of  Irishmen,  Nor  is  there  any  hopeless  diffi- 
culty about  accommodating  the  national  character- 
istics of  Scotch-Irish,  Anglo-Irish,  or  Irish.  In 
other  countries,  particularly  the  United  States,  we 
find  varieties  of  religion  and  mixtures  of  race  and 
social  dissidence,  but  it  was  very  largely  because  a 
privileged  class  insisted  upon  extending  its  privilege 
—  one  of  property  —  that  trouble  in  the  United 
States  became  unavoidable.  No  American  doubts 
that  covert  privilege  was  represented  at  the  founda- 
tion of  the  union  and  made  something  of  its  oppor- 

[  60] 


tunltles  but  we  have  simply  to  imagine  an  overt  par- 
ticularism on  the  part  of  New  England,  greedily 
clutching  power  to  the  bosom  of  New  England,  to 
decide  that  privilege  would  have  wrecked  federalism. 
The  fate  of  the  Jews  is  a  supreme  example  of  the 
result  of  invidious  distinction,  the  baleful  power  of 
the  Magyars  is  an  example  of  an  obvious  source  of 
it.  National  and  racial  and  religious  principles  en- 
ter into  all  these  conflicts,  but  without  a  powerful 
economic  element  you  cannot  have  explosion.  The 
long  step  toward  poHtical  adjustment,  to  take  it  the 
other  way,  is  the  correction  of  economic  differences. 
But  it  is  the  one  step  at  which  the  British  govern- 
ment of  Ireland  has  oftenest  faltered.  Usually 
within  the  British  government  there  have  been  per- 
sons like  Lord  Morley  who  interpreted  the  House 
of  Commons  in  a  spirit  quite  different  from  the 
glittering  gayety  of  Walter  Bagehot.  Such  liberals 
did  not  take  their  inspiration  from  sensible  men  of 
substantial  means.  They  held  their  representative 
assembly  in  solemn  honor.  They  believed  it  to  be 
the  bulwark  of  liberties  as  general  as  they  were 
fundamental.  They  saw  It  as  a  wheel  on  which  the 
destiny  of  the  British  people  could  be  turned.  At  a 
time  when  the  broadened  electorate  had  just  swept 
the  rotten  borough  out  of  existence,  they  exulted  in 
the  transfer  of  power  and  trusted  that  it  could  work 
economic  miracles.  At  the  behest  of  such  liberals, 
great  changes  did  take  place  In  Ireland.  After  a 
struggle  that  exhibited  property  stripped  and  bat- 
tling with  naked  indecency  through  long  sessions  of 
the  House  of  Lords,  the  land  question  of  Ireland 
was  finally  brought  to  an  adjustment  by  the  very 
junkers  who  had  bled  the  peasantry.     But  this  re- 

[6i  ] 


m'lttance  of  the  conquest  of  Ireland  cannot  be  taken 
to  typify  the  workings  of  government.  On  the  con- 
trary, government  has  largely  consisted  in  the  sup- 
port and  defence  of  privileged  non-Irishmen  who 
look  on  Ireland  as  their  natural  heritage.  And  the 
bitterest  trials  of  well-meaning  governors  of  Ireland 
have  always  come  from  persons  fearful  that  their 
ancient  privileges  might  be  jeopardized. 

ONE    TENTACLE    OF    PRIVILEGE 

Few  people  now  remember  the  tenacity  of -the  es- 
tablished Protestant  church,  for  example,  and  its 
peculiar  relation  to  Catholic  Ireland.  Yet  it  is 
worth  recalling,  if  only  to  see  how  the  favored  in- 
stitutions of  an  alien  government  die  hard.  Some- 
where in  Morley's  life  of  Gladstone  comes  the  pas- 
sage, "  the  contest  was  now  removed  from  the  con- 
stituencies and  their  representatives  in  parliament  to 
the  citadel  of  privilege.  The  issue  was  no  longer 
single,  and  the  struggle  for  religious  equality  in  Ire- 
land was  henceforth  merged  for  the  public  eye  in  a 
conflict  for  the  supremacy  of  the  Commons  in  Eng- 
land. Perhaps  I  should  not  have  spoken  of  religious 
equality,  for  in  fact  the  establishment  was  known  to 
be  doomed,  and  the  fight  turned  upon  the  amount  of 
property  with  which  the  free  church  was  to  go  forth 
to  face  the  new  fortunes.  '  I  should  urge  the  House 
of  Lords,'  wrote  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  to 
Mr.  Gladstone,  '  to  give  all  its  attention  to  saving  as 
large  an  endowment  as  possible.'  " 

In  quoting  this  passage  it  is  not  my  intention  to 
cast  an  oblique  glance  at  the  idea  or  the  nature  of 
religious  endowment.  It  is  true  that  the  established 
church  in  Ireland  was  a  religious  scandal.     It  was 

[62  ] 


also  an  economic  scandal  of  the  first  order.  Irish 
Catholic  cities  continue  to  offer  the  spectacle  of  the 
old  historic  cathedrals  and  churches  still  devoted  to 
the  use  of  Protestants,  but  this  moss-grown  evidence 
of  confiscation  is  nothing  to  the  active  and  inflamma- 
tory grievance  that  Catholics  had  before  the  dises- 
tablishment. Americans  are  serenely  remote  today 
from  the  conflicts  that  spring  out  of  a  state  re- 
ligion, but  there  is  still  food  for  envious  amazement 
at  the  fortunes  acquired  by  Anglican  dignitaries  and 
the  lucrative  aspects  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  In 
Ireland.  Ten  prelates  were  once  named  to  the 
House  of  Commons  who  had  left  this  vale  of  tears 
bequeathing  an  average  fortune  of  £250,000  apiece. 
In  i860  the  bishops  held  743,326  acres  of  Ireland 
in  trust  for  God.  The  governmental  exaction  of 
tithes  amounted  to  about  £500,000  a  year,  with 
bishoprics  yielding  from  £2,310  to  £14,632  a  year. 
For  700,000  members  of  the  state  religion  there 
were  as  many  parochial  clergymen  as  for  the  4,500,- 
000  Catholics.  These  broad  features  of  the  estab- 
lishment were  suflSciently  undemocratic  to  make  the 
issue  invincible  when  it  was  fought  to  a  finish.  My 
object  now,  however,  is  not  to  break  the  law  of 
oblivion  but  to  give  heed  to  Lord  Morley's  idioms. 
He  calls  the  upper  house  "  the  citadel  of  privilege." 
He  speaks  of  the  "  fight  "  turning  upon  "  the  amount 
of  property."  These  are  casual  gleams  of  basic 
economic  and  governmental  truths  too  little  realized. 

THE    HABIT   OF    GRIEVANCE 

The  main  reason  for  emphasizing  privilege  in  re- 
gard to  Ireland  is,  of  course,  the  fact  that  it  has  re- 
mained a  conquered  country.     It  is  this  that  has  ac- 

[63  ] 


centuated  privilege.  It  is  perfectly  true,  as  many 
professors  will  tell  you,  that  there  is  a  class  struggle 
in  England  and  America  as  well  as  in  Ireland,  and 
it  is  conceivable  to  argue  that  Ireland  has  about  the 
same  political  advantages  as  Scotland  or  Wales. 
The  really  oppressed  islander  in  this  view  is  the  all- 
sustaining  Briton.  This,  I  think,  is  one  of  Bernard 
Shaw's  strongest  feelings  about  the  Irish  question. 
He  has  seen  Ireland  press  its  claims  on  an  exasper- 
ated and  befuddled  House  of  Commons  until  in  mere 
moral  confusion  there  have  been  gross  concessions. 
In  John  Bull's  Other  Island  Mr.  Shaw  has  contrasted 
the  pertinacious  self-seeking  Irish  tenant  with  a 
dreadfully  evicted  and  downtrodden  Cockney,  and 
the  dramatist's  sympathies  are  obviously  with  that 
particular  limb  of  the  predominant  partner.  Noth- 
ing is  so  tiresome  to  a  man  of  Mr.  Shaw's  gallantry, 
on  the  other  hand,  as  the  drooping  lip  of  suppliance. 
To  be  a  willing  object  of  pity,  to  approach  life  hat 
in  hand,  with  an  eye  cocked  for  charity,  goes  against 
Mr.  Shaw's  Individualism.  He  detests  one  thing  as 
much  as  the  other,  the  habit  of  intransigence  and  the 
habit  of  grievance.  But  this  Shavian  impatience  is 
all  right  only  so  long  as  no  "  secret  splinter  "  is  left 
rankling.  Many  men  take  injustice  standing  up  but 
very  few,  after  all,  take  justice  lying  down.  It  Is 
superficial  to  blame  the  Irishman  for  wincing  until 
the  power  that  injured  him  has  been  broken.  That 
power  is  not  the  British  empire.  It  is  quite  un- 
equivocally British  imperialism.  Added  to  the 
trials  of  class  in  Ireland,  there  are  the  trials  of  class 
Identified  with  race  and  religion;  with  the  oppres- 
sive class  the  Imperial  one.  For  Ireland  is  one 
of  the  objects  that  has  made  Imperialism  hateful. 

[64] 


THE  CURSE  OF  IRELAND 
The  Irish  diagnosticians  do  not  agree  as  to  the 
cause  of  Ireland's  condition.  In  ordinary  talk  each 
Irishman  is  likely,  with  decided  emphasis,  to  at- 
tribute the  state  of  the  country  to  an  overwhelming 
primary  cause  of  his  own.  Since  the  state  is  un- 
happy, the  cause  is  always  deep-seated,  and.  If  pos- 
sible, beyond  human  control.  It  is  defined  as  "  the 
curse  of  Ireland."  Intemperance,  Sir,  Is  the  curse 
of  Ireland.  The  English  gover'ment  Is  the  one  In- 
fliction of  the  people.  The  priests  Is  at  the  back  of 
it  all,  the  priests  are  the  damn  ruination  of  the  coun- 
try. It's  the  Scarlet  Woman.  To  Hell  with  the 
Pope.  The  graziers  are  the  curse  of  Ireland.  The 
A.  O.  H.  is  the  curse  of  Ireland.  Gambling  Is  the 
blight  of  the  land.  Cooperation  is  part  of  the  con- 
ciliation policy,  and  everyone  knows  that  conciliation 
is  the  curse.  It's  ignorance,  the  lack  of  a  proper 
education,  that  Is  the  destruction  of  Irishmen.  The 
gombeen  man  Is  the  curse  of  Ireland.  Yesterday 
it  was  the  landlord,  today  it  Is  the  beggar  on  horse- 
back, who  rides  the  country  to  the  devil.  West 
Britonism  makes  us  what  we  are,  shoneenism  and 
toadyism,  so  It  is,  they're  the  curse  of  Ireland.  You 
can't  find  an  Irishman  to  do  an  honest  day's  work. 
The  class  of  people  that  goes  Into  service  today 
aren't  fit  for  the  poorhouse;  laziness  is  the  curse  of 
Ireland.  Black  tea,  stewing  on  the  hob,  has  the 
country  destroyed.  It's  new-fangled  notions,  put- 
ting false  Ideas  Into  the  heads  of  the  working-people, 
that's  the  curse  of  Ireland.  Ah,  It's  the  climate, 
your  Honor.  It's  a  terrible  climate !  The  climate 
is  the  curse  of  Ireland. 

[65] 


HOW   IT    HAPPENED 

It  Is  important  in  this  sort  of  inquiry  to  change 
the  venue.  The  average  Englishman  agrees  with 
this  principle  and  is  always  satisfied  to  take  the 
conference  from  Ennis  or  Enniscorthy  to  Oxford  or 
London.  But  pleasant  as  it  is  to  have  a  jury  of 
one's  British  Peers,  I  prefer  at  the  moment  to  sum- 
mon France  and  Italy.  My  first  two  witnesses,  un- 
fortunately, will  be  papists.  One  is  a  witness 
against  the  crown,  the  Rev.  Adolphe  Perraud,  a 
somewhat  tainted  witness.  The  other,  however,  is 
a  most  impartial  fellow.  He  is  to  testify  on  the  side 
of  the  crown  and  his  name  is  Niccolo  Machiavelli. 
The  Pope,  as  we  know,  "  has  a  bad  name  in  Porta- 
down,"  which  is  in  Ulster,  and  I  dislike  to  bring  for- 
ward so  complete  a  papist  as  Old  Nick;  but  he  testi- 
fies for  Ulster  so  sympathetically! 

Cardinal  Perraud,  as  he  afterwards  became,  wrote 
in  the  last  generation.  He  was  one  of  a  large  num- 
ber of  Frenchmen  who  have  studied  Ireland,  and  he 
was  quick  to  lay  his  finger  on  the  parent  economic 
trouble,  the  nature  of  Irish  conquest.  "  Ireland  is 
not  simply  a  conquered  country  "  he  said  with  the 
gesticulation  of  italics,  "  she  is  a  confiscated  coun- 
try; that  is  to  say,  the  suppression  of  her  nationality 
and  the  proscription  of  her  religion  are  not  her  only 
wrongs:  what  her  oppressors  coveted  and  wrenched 
from  her  beyond  her  national  independence  and  re- 
ligion .  .  .  was  the  lordship  of  the  Irish  soil;  so 
that,  as  in  the  wars  of  antiquity,  or  the  times  of  bar- 
baric invasion,  it  was  the  ownership  of  the  land 
which  was  wrested  from  the  vanquished,  it  was  the 
land  itself,  and  not  merely  political  rights,  which  the 
victors  claimed  and  seized." 

[  66] 


It  must  be  allowed  that  the  fact  of  this  barbarian 
invasion,  this  "  forcible  confiscation  of  Irish  land, 
and  the  '  planting '  of  English  and  Scotch  settlers," 
has  the  extreme  merit  of  undisputed  authenticity, 
but  before  I  report  it  I  should  like  to  give  the  moral 
background  of  the  confiscation.  Its  descendants  call 
it  "  trusteeship  for  the  empire,"  but  they  bite  the 
fine  Italian  hand  that  fed  them.  Machiavelli  must 
be  set  down  as  the  spiritual  godfather  of  Ulster. 
The  present  status  of  Ulster,  indeed,  Illustrates  the 
drawbacks  of  Realpolitik. 

"  When  dominions  are  acquired  in  a  province  dif- 
fering in  language,  laws,  and  customs,"  said  the 
candid  Italian,  "  the  difficulties  to  be  overcome  are 
great,  and  it  requires  good  fortune  as  well  as  great 
industry  to  retain  them.  .  .  .  The  remedy  is  to 
plant  colonies  in  one  or  two  places  which  form  as 
it  were  the  keys  of  the  land,  for  it  is  necessary  either 
to  do  this  or  to  maintain  a  large  force  of  armed  men. 
The  colonies  will  cost  the  prince  little;  with  little 
or  no  expense  on  his  part,  he  can  send  and  maintain 
them;  he  only  injures  those  whose  lands  and  houses 
are  taken  to  give  to  the  new  inhabitants,  and  these 
form  but  a  small  proportion  of  the  state,  and  those 
who  are  injured  remain  poor  and  scattered,  can 
never  do  any  harm  to  him,  and  all  the  others  are, 
on  the  one  hand,  not  injured  and  therefore  easily 
pacified;  and,  on  the  other,  are  fearful  of  offending 
lest  they  should  be  treated  like  those  who  have  been 
dispossessed  of  their  property.  To  conclude,  these 
colonies  cost  nothing,  are  more  faithful,  and  give 
less  offence;  and  the  injured  parties  being  poor  and 
scattered  are  unable  to  do  mischief,  as  I  have  shown. 
For  it  must  be   noted,   that  men   must  either  be 

[  67  ] 


caressed  or  else  annihilated;  they  will  revenge  them- 
selves for  small  injuries,  but  cannot  do  so  for  great 
ones;  the  injury  therefore  that  we  do  to  a  man  must 
be  such  that  we  need  not  fear  his  vengeance." 

So  much  for  the  principle  upon  which  the  country 
was  colonized.  Two  men  outside  Ireland,  Erskine 
Childers  and  Emile  Boutmy,  may  now  be  taken  to 
describe  in  a  brief  manner  the  process  of  applying 
Machiavelli. 

Mr.  Childers  shows  that  Ireland  came  into  the 
full  view  of  young  imperialism  at  the  same  time  as 
the  American  continent,  and  he  makes  a  valuable 
parallel.  "  Adventurous  and  ambitious  English- 
men began  to  regard  her  fertile  acres  as  Raleigh 
regarded  America,  and,  in  point  of  time,  the  sys- 
tematic and  State-aided  colonization  of  Ireland  Is 
approximately  contemporaneous  with  that  of  Amer- 
ica. It  is  true  that  until  the  first  years  of  the  six- 
teenth century  no  permanent  British  settlement  had 
been  made  in  America,  while  in  Ireland  the  planta- 
tion of  King's  and  Queen's  Counties  was  begun  as 
early  as  1556,  and  under  Elizabeth  further  vast 
confiscations  were  carried  out  in  Munster  within  the 
same  century.  But  from  the  reign  of  James  I  on- 
ward, the  two  processes  advance  pari  passu.  Vir- 
ginia, first  founded  by  Raleigh  in  1585,  is  firmly 
settled  in  1607,  just  before  the  confiscation  of 
Ulster  and  its  plantation  by  30,000  Scots;  and  in 
1620,  just  after  that  huge  measure  of  expropriation, 
the  Pilgrim  Fathers  landed  in  New  Plymouth. 
Puritan  Massachusetts  —  with  Its  offshoots,  Con- 
necticut, New  Haven,  and  Rhode  Island  —  as  well 
as  Catholic  Maryland,  were  formally  established  be- 
tween  1629  and   1638,  and  Maine  In   1639,   at  a 

[  68  ] 


period  when  the  politically  inspired  proscription  of 
the  Catholic  religion,  succeeding  the  robbery  of  the 
soil,  was  goading  the  unhappy  Irish  to  the  rebellion 
of  1 641.  While  that  rebellion,  with  its  fierce  ex- 
cesses and  pitiless  reprisals,  was  convulsing  Ireland, 
the  united  Colonies  of  New  England  banded  them- 
selves together  for  mutual  defence." 

THE    IMPORTANCE    OF    BEING    INDIAN 

American  colonization  was  a  success  because  the 
American  Indian  was  annihilated.  The  Irish  were 
not  exterminable.  "  A  few  years  later  Cromwell, 
aiming,  through  massacre  and  rapine,  at  the  ex- 
termination of  the  Irish  race,  with  the  savage  watch- 
word, '  To  Hell  or  Connaught,'  planted  Ulster, 
Munster  and  Leinster  with  men  of  the  same  stock, 
stamp  and  ideas  as  the  colonists  of  New  England, 
and  in  the  first  years  of  the  Restoration  Charles  II 
confirmed  these  confiscations,  at  the  same  time  that 
he  granted  Carolina  to  Lord  Clarendon,  New 
Netherlands  to  the  Duke  of  York,  and  New  Jersey 
to  Lord  Berkeley,  and  issued  fresh  charters  for 
Connecticut  and  Maryland.   .   .   . 

"  It  is  interesting,  and  for  a  proper  understand- 
ing of  the  Irish  question,  indispensable,  briefly  to 
contrast  the  characteristics  and  progress  of  the 
American  and  Irish  settlements,  and  in  doing  so  to 
observe  the  profound  effects  of  geographical  posi- 
tion and  political  institutions  on  human  charac- 
ter.  .   .  . 

"  Let  us  note,  first,  that  both  in  America  and 
Ireland  the  Colonies  were  bi-racial,  with  this  all- 
important  distinction,  that  in  America  the  native 
race  was  coloured,   savage,   heathen,  nomadic,   in- 

[  69  ] 


capable  of  fusion  with  the  whites,  and  In  relation 
to  the  almost  illimitable  territory  colonized,  not 
numerous;  while  in  Ireland  the  native  race  was  white, 
civilized,  Christian,  numerous  and  confined  within 
the  limits  of  a  small  island  to  which  it  was  passion- 
ately attached  by  treasured  national  traditions,  and 
whose  soil  it  cultivated  under  an  ancient  and  revered 
system  of  tribal  tenure.  The  parallel,  then,  in  this 
respect,  is  slight,  and  becomes  insignificant,  except 
In  regard  to  the  similarity  of  the  mental  attitude  of 
the  colonists  towards  Indians  and  Irish  respect- 
ively," 

In  other  words,  the  good  Indian  is  the  dead  In- 
dian. It  is  not  so  many  years  since  an  Englishman, 
visiting  the  United  States,  humorously  suggested 
that  two  diflficult  non-Teutonic  problems  could  be 
solved  if  every  Irishman  In  America  murdered  a 
Negro  and  was  hanged  for  It.  This  would  leave 
the  world  to  the  everlasting  amity  of  Briton,  Amer- 
ican and  German.  Mr.  Freeman  was  quite  sur- 
prised that  his  joke  was  not  universally  enjoyed. 
But  M.  Boutmy  throws  some  light  on  the  seamy  side 
of  the  joke:  "The  Englishman  established  him- 
self in  that  country  by  force,  and,  significant  fact, 
governs  it  by  force.  He  began  by  driving  the  Irish 
back  beyond  the  pale,  and  a  little  later  became  master 
of  the  whole  island.  He  cemented  his  dominion 
under  Elizabeth  and  Cromwell  by  conscientious  mas- 
sacres. On  the  field  of  battle  he  made  no  prison- 
ers; he  hunted  the  fugitives  like  wild  beasts,  and 
transported  the  inhabitants  of  an  entire  district  to 
Barbadoes  as  slaves.  It  was  a  war  of  extermina- 
tion." 

"  The  whole  of  your  Island  has  been  confiscated," 
[  70] 


said  the  Earl  of  Clare  in  1799,  "with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  estates  of  four  or  six  families  of  Eng- 
lish blood,  some  of  whom  had  been  attainted  in  the 
reign  of  Henry  VIII,  but  recovered  their  posses- 
sions before  Tyrone's  rebellion,  and  had  the  good 
fortune  to  escape  the  pillage  of  the  English  re- 
public inflicted  by  Cromwell;  and  no  inconsiderable 
portion  of  the  island  has  been  confiscated  twice  or 
perhaps  thrice  in  the  course  of  a  century." 

I  am  tempted  to  add  the  powerful  testimony  of 
Edmund  Burke.  "  The  original  scheme,"  he  de- 
clared at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  "  was 
never  deviated  from  for  a  single  hour.  Unheard-of 
confiscations  were  made  in  the  northern  parts,  upon 
grounds  of  plots  and  conspiracies,  never  proved  upon 
their  supposed  authors.  The  war  of  chicane  suc- 
ceeded to  the  war  of  arms  and  of  hostile  statutes; 
and  a  regular  series  of  operations  was  carried  on, 
particularly  from  Chichester's  time,  in  the  ordinary 
courts  of  justice,  and  by  special  commissions  and 
inquisitions;  first  under  pretence  of  tenures,  and  then 
of  titles  in  the  crown,  for  the  purpose  of  the  total 
extirpation  of  the  interest  of  the  natives  in  their 
own  soil  —  until  these  species  of  subtle  ravage,  being 
carried  to  the  last  excess  of  oppression  and  inso- 
lence under  Lord  Strafford,  it  kindled  the  flames  of 
that  rebellion  which  broke  out  in  1641." 

THE    DIRTY    IRISH 

Although  this  is  191 8,  please  remember  1641. 
It  will  presently  reappear.  But  before  going  to 
the  live  issue  of  Ulster  it  is  well  to  look  at  the  dead 
issue  of  landlordism,  both  issues  having  originated 
in   the   confiscations.     In   one   respect,    it   is   clear, 

[  H  ] 


MachlavelH  was  misapplied.  The  native  Irish  were 
not  exterminated.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of  them 
went  to  the  continent  as  soldiers,  a  flight  of  "  wild 
geese."  Some  went  as  slaves  to  the  Barbadoes. 
A  few  emigrated  to  the  colonies.  But  most  of  them 
hung  on,  occupying  parts  of  their  old  lands  at  ex- 
orbitant rents.  \'arious  aspects  of  their  strange 
history  will  recur  in  this  book.  It  is  enough  now 
to  state  that  their  compulsory  occupation  was  agri- 
culture, for  which  they  were  technically  untrained, 
and  economically  unequipped,  and  in  which  the 
"  law  "  gave  them  little  countenance  or  security. 

Till  quite  late  in  the  nineteenth  century  the  vast 
majority  of  these  native  Irish  remained  ignorant 
and  poverty-stricken  serfs,  subsisting  for  the  most 
part  on  milk  and  potatoes,  always  living  on  the  brink 
of  starvation,  and  condemned  by  what  President 
Wilson  calls  "  economic  servitude  "  to  labor  not  in 
their  own  interests  but  In  the  Interests  of  the  govern- 
ing class.  So  prone  was  their  condition  that  the 
royal  commission  of  1836  reported  the  number  of 
persons  out  of  work  and  In  distress  as  585,000,  with 
1,800,000  dependents,  making  2,385,000  In  all. 
The  average  weekly  wage  for  laborers  was  from  2S 
to  2s  6d  per  week.  So  dreadful  was  this  distress 
that  the  plutocracy  and  aristocracy  of  England,  act- 
ing through  Lord  John  Russell,  sent  over  a  com- 
missioner to  Ireland  to  devise  a  workhouse  In  which 
these  serfs  could  be  stored  in  a  "  superior  degree  of 
comfort."  The  commissioner,  strange  to  relate, 
found  that  the  Irish  serf  was  unwilling  to  pay  this 
modest  punishment  for  the  crime  of  poverty. 
"  Confinement  of  any  kind  Is  more  irksome  to  an 
Irishman  than  It  Is  even  to  an  Englisman,"  reports 

[  72  ] 


the  Commissioner,  "  and  hence,  although  the  Irish- 
man may  be  lodged,  fed  and  clothed  in  a  workhouse 
better  than  he  could  lodge,  feed  and  clothe  himself 
by  his  own  exertions,  he  will  yet  never  enter  the 
workhouse  unless  driven  there  by  actual  necessity." 
Lord  John  Russell's  "  superior  degree  of  comfort  " 
may  be  judged  from  the  dietary  of  the  two  Dublin 
workhouses  in  1841,  which  was  stigmatized  by  the 
Commissioner  as  "  too  abundant."  "  There  were 
two  meals  a  day.  Breakfast,  every  day  7  ounces  of 
oatmeal  and  stirabout;  Dinner,  on  five  days  of  the 
week,  4  lbs.  of  potatoes  weighed  raw,  and  half  pint 
of  butter  milk;  on  two  days  of  the  week,  2  lbs.  pota- 
toes weighed  raw,  the  potatoes  being  stewed  in 
broth.  That  was  a  style  of  dietary  that  was  su- 
perior to  that  of  the  independent  laborer  outside." 
Had  the  aristagogue  Bagehot  adverted  to  the  vul- 
gar realities  of  the  human  stomach,  he  might  have 
despaired  less  of  .the  lower  orders  of  mankind. 
But  such  a  dietary,  and  such  a  living  wage,  naturally 
resulted  in  degradation.  The  common  Irish  were 
lazy,  on  this  superb  diet.  They  were  dirty,  on  a 
soap  that  was  heavily  taxed.  They  were  improvi- 
dent, on  2s  6d  a  week.  They  were  drunken,  out  of 
reckless  levity.  They  were  suspicious  and  unre- 
liable, in  spite  of  Lord  John  Russell's  beneficent 
offer  of  the  poorhouse. 

THE    FALL  OF    FEUDALISM 

The  climax  of  this  situation  was  the  famine  of 
1 845-1 849.  This  famine  came  after  the  investiga- 
tions of  numerous  experts.  It  had  been  foreseen, 
it  had  even  been  reckoned  "  inevitable."  It  cost 
729,033    lives.     "  Far   more,"    said   John   Bright, 

[  73  ]     ' 


"  than  ever  fell  by  the  sword  In  any  war  England 
ever  waged."  I  regret  to  say  that  this  statement, 
hard  as  it  was,  could  not  remain  perpetually  true. 
The  total  British  killed  In  the  world  war  up  to 
January  i,  1916,  was  128,136,  about  one-sixth  of 
the  peace  mortality  of  the  Irish  famine,  but  since 
then  the  hideous  Ingenuity  and  exaction  of  a  world- 
wide war  has  slain  (up  to  May  i,  19 18)  over  one 
million  English,  Irish,  Scotch,  Welsh,  Canadians, 
Australians,  South  Africans,  New  Zealanders,  In- 
dians, and  other  defenders  of  the  empire. 

The  proximate  cause  of  the  great  famine  was  the 
potato  blight.  The  underlying  cause  was  the  multi- 
plication of  holdings  during  the  prosperity  of  the 
Napoleonic  wars,  enormous  subletting,  and  landlord 
greed.  We  learn  now,  from  the  research  of  the 
Irish  quarterly,  Studies,  that  there  were  5,702,133 
country-people  living  in  mud  cabins  in  1841,  with 
2,066,290  living  on  holdings  utterly  Incapable  of 
supporting  them.  When  the  potatoes  failed  every- 
thing was  lost,  and  most  of  these  peasants  died  either 
of  typhus  fever  or  "  the  great  hunger."  An  or- 
ganizer like  Mr.  Hoover  might  have  saved  most  of 
them,  If  permitted  to  do  so,  but  during  that  great 
hunger  the  following  excellent  foods  were  sold  and 
allowed  to  leave  Ireland:  572,485  head  of  cattle; 
839,118  sheep;  699,021  pigs;  2,532,839  qrs.  of 
oats;  1,821,091  cwts.  of  oatmeal;  455,256  qrs.  of 
wheat;  1,494,852  cwts.  of  wheatmeal.  These 
would  have  prevented  famine,  but  In  the  absence  of 
self-government  an  embargo  was  impossible  to 
Irishmen.  Yet  the  correct  English  judgment  In 
19 17  still  firmly  refuses  to  entertain  the  property 
aspect  of  the  famine.     I  shall  quote  elsewhere  a  most 

[  74] 


accomplished  Oxford  professor,  Mr.  Ernest  Barker, 
to  the  effect  that  the  culprit  was  "  nature."  Or,  as 
one  is  afraid  the  Kaiser  would  say,  the  will  of  God. 

Yet  the  economic  power  of  the  landlord  could 
scarcely  survive  this  disaster  and  disgrace.  It  cost 
fifty  years  of  agitation  and  £185,000,000  to  clean  up 
landlordism,  but  the  transfer  of  economic  power  in 
this  department  of  Irish  life  has  now  been  substan- 
tially effected.  The  unfortunate  legacies  from  land- 
lordism will  later  be  examined,  but  it  is  best  first  of 
all  to  face  the  rebuttal  to  my  accusation  of  landlord 
greed.  That  rebuttal  I  prefer  to  give  you  in  other 
words  than  my  own.  It  is  utterly  wrong,  I  have 
been  told,  to  make  it  appear  "  that  the  English  gov- 
ernment and  English  landlords  in  Ireland  had  been 
monsters  and  that  glorious,  free  America  had  been 
the  rescue  of  the  Irish.  That  the  law  and  the  sys- 
tem of  land  tenure  In  Ireland  up  to  about  forty 
years  ago  were  unsuitable  and  caused  sad  tragedies 
is  sure,  but  they  were  precisely  the  same  as  in  Amer- 
ica and  everywhere  else.  America  was  the  main 
cause  of  the  destruction  of  Ireland,  because  Ireland 
could  not  compete  with  the  fertile  sunny  climate  of 
America  In  agriculture,  or  with  the  enormous  extent 
of  cheap  land  In  America  for  stock  rearing.  The 
constant  lowering  of  prices  was  disastrous  to  Ire- 
land. The  fault  of  England  was  the  fault  of  human 
nature.  We  only  very  slowly  and  under  much  pres- 
sure came  to  understand  that  laws  which  were  suit- 
able in  rich  England  or  America  were  impossible  In 
poverty-stricken  Ireland.  We  did  not  at  first  under- 
stand the  problems,  and  nor  would  any  other  gov- 
ernment. 

*'  For  the  most  part  the  landlords  were  kindly 
[  75  ] 


and  well-meaning,  and  did  not  press  for  the  collec- 
tion of  their  rents,  but  took  what  they  could  get,  as 
was  shown  by  the  enormous  arrears  which  were 
wiped  out  by  the  first  land  law. 

"  The  recent  prosperity  of  Ireland  is  due  much 
more  to  the  rise  of  agricultural  prices  of  late  years 
than  to  modern  legislation,  though  that,  too,  has  had 
a  good  effect. 

"  It  Is  only  natural  that  people  who  see  themselves 
being  gradually  ruined,  should  attribute  the  evil  to 
a  foreign  government,  which  is  not  sympathetic,  and 
which  puts  tremendous  power  into  the  hands  of  the 
creditor.  That  power  should  be  curtailed  all  over 
the  world  as  it  has  been  in  Ireland  in  land  questions, 
and  as  it  should  be  in  all  transactions." 

THE    CASE    AGAINST    LANDLORDS 

This  defence  falls  into  four  parts.  First,  the  argu- 
ment of  lowered  prices  and  American  competition. 
Lowered  prices  did  undoubtedly  drive  the  landlords 
from  tillage,  but  instead  of  reconstruction,  the 
peasants  got  eviction.  The  landlords,  on  the  con- 
trary, raised  cattle  instead  of  grain,  and  suffered  no 
prime  hardship.  Second,  the  English  "  did  not  un- 
derstand the  problems,  nor  would  any  other  govern- 
ment." The  answer  to  this  is  clear.  The  Irish 
fought,  bled  and  died  to  be  allowed  to  deal  with 
their  own  problems  and  take  the  consequences.  The 
repeal  agitation  walked  step  by  step  with  the  ap- 
proach of  famine.  The  alien  government  con- 
fessedly "  did  not  understand  the  problems."  It 
failed  utterly  either  to  learn  those  problems  or  to 
quit  forcing  its  blunders  on  Ireland.  It  is  a  shock- 
ing defence  of  that  policy  that  "  very  slowly  and 

[  76] 


under  much  pressure  "  the  governing  class  came  to 
see  that  English  conceptions  did  not  suit  poverty- 
stricken  Ireland.  It  took  729,000  deaths  from 
starvation  to  make  England  see  a  need  that  was  as 
plain  as  a  pikestaff  to  Ireland.  Besides,  under  the 
economic  law  ignorance  of  the  law  Is  no  excuse. 

The  third  point  is  that,  however  culpable  Eng- 
land might  be,  the  landlords  "  took  what  they  could 
get."  It  Is  not  mere  flippancy  to  say  that  most  of 
them  certainly  did.  These  kindly  and  well-meaning 
creatures  are  now  taking  the  last  they  could  get, 
and  It  will  amount  to  £185,000,000.  This,  from 
poverty-stricken  Ireland,  Is  not  such  a  bad  bon  voy- 
age. It  Is  well  to  remember  that.  In  1880,  750  men 
owned  half  the  area  of  this  wretched  country,  and 
seven  absentee  strangers  took  £100,000  In  annual 
rent  out  of  one  poor  western  county  alone. 

Considering  how  much  the  landlords  lost  by  be- 
ing landlords  It  pays  very  well  to  give  up  losing  It. 
There  is  a  lot  of  tribute  to  be  offered  to  the  anclen 
regime,  but  £185,000,000  goes  a  palpable  distance  In 
that  direction.  The  real  condemnation  of  Irish 
landlordism  was  not,  however,  the  rent.  It  was  the 
non-English  system  by  which  the  rent  left  the  coun- 
try, taking  all  the  capital  out  of  agriculture  and 
throwing  on  an  Insecure  tenant  the  hopeless  burden 
of  improvements. 

The  last  point,  that  good  legislation  was  not 
everything,  Is  partly  sound.  The  change  to  peasant 
proprietorship  substitutes  for  a  flexible  rental  a 
rigid  medium-sized  annual  charge.  So  long  as  there 
Is  agricultural  prosperity,  this  annual  payment  seems 
a  good  bargain,  but  a  big  slump  In  prices  would  pinch 
the  tenants  immediately,  where  It  once  would  have 

[  77  ] 


taxed  the  landlords.  It  is  the  landlord  to  whom 
the  government  really  gave  security.  This  is  the 
cloud  of  which  peasant  proprietorship  is  the  silver 
lining.  The  fate  of  Ireland  is  bound  up  with  the 
fate  of  agriculture,  good  government  or  bad  govern- 
ment. Yet  one  cannot  take  this  as  an  apology  for 
government  admittedly  bad,  nor  is  it  a  real  argu- 
ment for  landlordism.  If  it  points  to  anything,  it 
points  to  fiscal  as  well  as  administrative  autonomy. 
,  Government,  after  all,  can  do  something  besides 
make  two  policemen  grow  where  one  grew  before. 
It  is  a  benign  fact  that  it  is  no  longer  needful  to  re- 
cite the  unfair  terms  of  land  tenure  and  the  ferocious 
processes  of  eviction.  With  the  vested  interests  that 
confiscation  created  there  was  a  devotion  of  every 
energy  and  resource  of  the  country  to  the  service 
of  Its  landed  beneficiaries,  with  the  government  either 
eager  or  compliant.  Not  only  the  military  and  the 
armed  police  stood  back  of  the  "  garrison."  These 
occupiers  supplied  the  administrators  or  dictated  the 
administration.  They  gave  law  to  the  judiciary. 
They  packed  the  juries.  They  levied  local  taxes. 
They  recruited  the  militia.  They  kept  Ireland  in 
educational  eclipse.  This  in  the  main  was  neither 
malignancy  nor  even  stupidity.  It  was  the  inevit- 
able result  of  a  system  that  they  were  too  dependent 
to  change  and  too  Inert  to  manage.  Their  very  in- 
ertia and  dependence  doomed  them.  The  peas- 
antry, working  through  the  parliamentary  party  by 
virtue  of  the  franchise,  won  back  by  rods  and  acres 
the  land  that  was  wrested  by  baronies  and  shires. 
English  liberalism,  of  course,  had  its  great  share 
in  this  reformation,  but  the  delay  In  the  reformation 
made    more    political    Impression    than    its    conse- 

[  78  ] 


quences.  "  Burke  left  behind  him  two  warnings, 
both  of  them  full  of  truth,  full  of  gravity,"  Matthew 
Arnold  has  written.  "  One  Is,  that  concessions, 
sufficient  if  given  in  good  time  and  at  a  particular 
conjuncture  of  events,  become  Insufficient  if  deferred. 
The  other  Is,  that  concessions,  extorted  from  em- 
barrassment and  fear,  produce  no  gratitude,  and 
allay  no  resentment.  '  God  forbid,'  he  cries,  '  that 
our  conduct  should  demonstrate  to  the  world  that 
Great  Britain  can  in  no  instance  whatsoever  be 
brought  to  a  sense  of  rational  and  equitable  policy, 
but  by  coercion  and  force  of  arms.'  " 

ULSTER 

This  brings  us  to  Ulster.  What  Is  the  Ulster 
question  and  who  has  a  vested  Interest  In  It?  Whose 
privileges  will  be  disturbed  If  the  Catholic  and  the 
Presbyterian  come  together?  Is  there  any  real 
cause  for  separation  between  these  co-habitants  of 
the  prosperous  eastern  counties  of  Ulster?  Is  there 
any  real  reason  why  they  cannot  work  together  for 
Ireland?  The  nationalist  politician  says  there  is 
no  reason.  The  unionist  politician's  reply  Is  to 
laugh.  He  sees  the  proposal  of  unity  as  a  levelling- 
doM'n  of  the  Ulsterman,  never  as  a  levelling-up  of  the 
nationalist,  and  he  has  his  answer  ready  for  every 
historic  recrimination  and  gibe.  The  landlords  of 
the  south  may  have  lost  their  grip  on  their  ascend- 
ancy; that  Is  no  reason  why  the  Ulstermen  should 
be  supine  In  yielding  their  birthright.  The  old- 
guard  Unionists,  English  and  Irish,  keep  crying  to 
them,  "  no  surrender  "  and  "  never  say  die." 

You  may  offer  the  Unionist  a  faint  word  In  re- 
gard to   the   history   of   Ulster.     Ah-ha.   says   the 

[  79  ] 


Orange  spokesman  of  19 17,  you  are  digging  up  this 
old  question  of  title  to  incite  the  greedy!  ''  There 
Is  not  a  Roman  Catholic  in  Ulster,"  as  Lord  Ernest 
Hamilton,  ex-M.P.,  puts  It,  "  to  whom  the  promise 
of  home  rule  does  not  mean  the  promise  of  the  re- 
covery of  forfeited  lands.  In  some  districts  the 
lands  of  the  Protestant  farmers  have  already  been 
officially  allotted  among  the  native  population." 
Mark  the  word  native.  This  faith  In  the  Apache 
character  of  Ulster  Catholics  Is  an  Important  ele- 
ment in  the  programme  of  politicians  like  Mr. 
Hamilton.  "  Yes,"  says  Mr.  Hamilton,  "  Ulster 
was  colonized.  But  let  us  consider  further.  Is 
colonization  to  be  classed  as  an  act  of  piracy,  or  is 
it  a  necessary  part  of  the  gradual  reclamation  of  the 
world?  ...  It  can  safely  be  said  that  no  coloniza- 
tion scheme  has  ever  been  more  abundantly  justified, 
both  by  antecedent  conditions  and  by  results,  than 
has  that  of  Ulster  by  James  I  of  England."  Of 
course  the  natives  disliked  this  holy  war  of  civiliza- 
tion, but  natives  are  so  unreasonable.  "  It  was  clear 
that  the  goodwill  of  the  natives  could  not  be  won  by 
individual  acts  of  kindness.  All  such  were  out- 
weighed, and.  Indeed,  wholly  neutralized  by  the 
initial  act  of  usurpation.  Nothing  could  have  been 
more  conciliatory  than  the  James  I  settlers,  but  their 
conciliation  had  counted  for  nothing  In  face  of  the 
one  salient  fact  that  they  were  In  arbitrary  occupa- 
tion of  Irish  soil."  Hence  the  natives'  uprising  In 
1641  and  the  massacre  of  the  colonists.  Are  the 
natives  different  today?  "The  soul  of  the  native 
Irish  has  not  at  the  present  day  changed  by  the 
width  of  a  hair  from  what  It  was  In  1641,  and  again 
in  1798.  .  .  .  All  conciliatory  measures  fail  to  con- 

[  80  ] 


dilate,  or  to  elicit  the  faintest  spark  of  gratitude." 
Here  you  get  the  "  Ulster  question  "  in  its  raw- 
ness. No  partisan  exponent  on  either  side  can  for- 
get this  list  of  ancient  and  honorable  grievances,  and 
he  rejoices  to  know  that  the  conflict  is  kept  alive  by 
the  religious  difference,  marked  by  the  failure  of 
Presbyterian  and  Catholic  to  intermarry.  But,  the 
American  asks,  what  is  it  all  about?  What  hap- 
pened in  1 172  and  1641  and  1798,  and  before  the 
flood,  and  why?  And  why  harp  on  It?  What  Is 
its  significance  in  the  twentieth  century? 

The  American  is  really  interested.  Here  Is  the 
Ulster  minority  conflicting  with  the  Irish  majority, 
just  as  the  Irish  minority  conflicted  with  the  Eng- 
lish majority.  If  "  minority  rights  "  are  sauce  for 
the  Irish,  they  should  be  sauce  for  the  Ulsterman. 
Why  should  nationalists  try  to  bully  the  men  In  the 
north?  Since  19 10  this  phase  of  the  political  ques- 
tion In  Ireland  has  arrested  many  Americans. 
Ulster  has  superseded  the  climate  and  the  clergy  in 
causing  perplexity.  The  logic  of  the  situation  makes 
it  seem  practically  Insurmountable. 

Not  only  does  the  logic  of  it  seem  unsurmountable 
but  the  very  size  of  Ulster  is  In  Its  favour.  When 
you  turn  the  street-corner  and  suddenly  come  on  a 
fight,  your  sympathies  go  to  the  under-dog,  and  when 
the  crowd  preserves  a  mysterious  Impartiality,  the 
angel  in  you  records  another  note  on  man's  Inhuman- 
ity to  man.  Then  you  Inquire  about  the  fight. 
And  sometimes,  not  always,  you  discover  that  No.  2, 
the  object  of  your  sympathies,  is  not  himself  a  mem- 
ber of  the  peace  party  but  a  willing  combatant. 
Cold  though  It  may  be,  you  admit  that  to  judge  of 
any  sort  of  a  fight  It  Is  not  enough  to  rush  to  the 

[  81  ] 


side  which  presents  at  the  moment  the  defensive 
spectacle.  It  is  not  the  defence,  but  the  thing  de- 
fended that  matters.  In  the  affairs  of  nations,  this 
is  also  true.  During  the  Civil  War,  the  south  at- 
tracted to  its  side  many  people  at  a  distance  who  were 
inspired  by  the  heroic  defensive  spectacle.  But  as 
time  went  on,  foreign  opinion  came  to  consider  the 
thing  defended  as  well  as  the  heroism  of  defence, 
and  certainly  the  day  arrived  when  a  southern  sym- 
pathizer like  George  Meredith  learned  to  be  sur- 
prised at  the  temper  in  which  he  had  been  prone  to 
liken  Lincoln  to  a  gorilla. 

CAPITALISM   IN   ULSTER 

It  IS  for  an  economic  reason,  unfortunately,  that 
Belfast,  and  the  Ulster  which  it  represents,  is  the 
sorest  problem  of  Irish  democracy.  Its  wealth 
makes  it  shrink  from  agricultural  Ireland.  Power- 
ful and  affluent,  it  affirms  an  imperative  will  as  re- 
gards home  rule,  and  that  will  is  largely  the  evidence 
of  capitalism  in  power. 

The  interests  of  capitalism  are  in  the  main  an- 
tagonistic to  the  interests  of  the  small  nationality. 
As  M.  Gregor  Alexinsky  has  observed  in  regard  to 
Poland,  capitalist  industry  "  requires  a  centralized 
system  of  government."  It  is  in  this  principle,  not 
in  any  racial  or  religious  principle,  that  the  im- 
perialism of  Belfast  is  firmly  founded. 

Before  the  development  of  capitalism  the  Belfast 
bourgeoisie  was  a  hotbed  of  republicanism.  But 
with  Andrew  Mulholland's  introduction  of  yarn  ma- 
chinery in  1830,  Its  republicanism  faded  finally  away. 
Labor  was  cheap  in  Belfast,  and  on  cheap  labor 
plus  machine  efficiency  Belfast,  without  one  natural 

[  82  ] 


advantage,  became  a  typical  industrial  capitalistic 
community.  Its  rulers'  interests  thereafter  became 
identical  with  the  interests  of  the  British  plutocracy. 
The  supreme  guardian  of  those  interests  is  the 
British  parliament,  Belfast  became  riven  to  the 
union.  And  just  as  British  labor  has  fought  its  fight 
in  the  British  parliament,  so  the  Belfast  proletariat 
that  fears  and  hates  the  Catholic  has  followed  suit. 
The  Belfast  proletariat  scanned  Ireland  in  vain  for 
favorable  political  alliance.  In  the  powerful  cross- 
channel  labor  organizations  it  saw  its  hope  for  in- 
dustrial improvement.  Unionist  pamphlets  show 
that  It  actually  "  beseeches  "  British  labor  not  to  de- 
sert it. 

Meanwhile  the  Unionist  branch  of  the  Belfast 
proletariat  has  Its  share  of  the  general  evils  of 
capitalism,  though  the  under-dog  In  Belfast  Is  the 
Catholic.  "  Whatever  benefit  has  accrued  to  the 
merchants  of  Belfast  from  the  union,"  says  St.  John 
Ervlne,  "  none  of  that  benefit  has  accrued  to  the 
working  people." 

That  Belfast's  opposition  to  home  rule  Is  a  result 
of  economic  development,  that  this  development  par- 
takes of  the  general  evils  of  capitalism,  and  that  the 
Unionist  ideology  is  imperialist  Ideology  Is  evident 
on  even  a  hasty  Inquiry,  though  whether  home  rule 
can  solve  the  problem  of  Ulster  democracy  is  an- 
other question. 

BEFORE    THE    INDUSTRIAL   REVOLUTION 

Before  capitalism  developed,  Belfast  made  no 
secret  of  its  antagonism  to  the  British  connection. 

"  The  Presbyterlanism  of  the  North,  and  espe- 
cially of  Belfast,  had  long  been  Inclined  to  republi- 

[  83  ] 


canism,"  remarks  Lecky  of  the  year  1790.  "In 
July,  179 1,  the  anniversary  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion was  celebrated  at  Belfast  with  great  enthusiasm. 
All  the  volunteers  of  the  neighborhood  attended. 
An  address  drawn  up  in  the  most  fulsome  strain  of 
admiration  was  sent  to  France.  Democratic  toasts 
were  drunk,  and  speeches  made  eulogizing  Paine, 
Washington,  and  the  French  Revolution,  and  de- 
manding an  equal  representation  in  parliament,  and 
the  abolition  of  the  remaining  Popery  laws.  A  reso- 
lution was  shortly  after  drawn  up  by  the  first  volun- 
teer company.  In  favor  of  the  abolition  of  religious 
disqualifications,  and  It  was  responded  to  by  an  ad- 
dress of  thanks  from  some  Catholic  bodies.  This 
was  said  to  have  been  the  first  considerable  sign  of 
that  union  between  the  Presbyterians  and  Catholics 
which  led  to  the  formation  of  the  United  Irish 
Society." 

There  were  other  signs  of  a  love  of  Ireland,  a 
broad  community,  in  the  Orange  country.  Protes- 
tant Yeomen,  representing  143  corps,  had  met  in  the 
church  at  Duncannon  and  passed  a  resolution  that 
"  as  men,  as  Irishmen,  as  Christians,  and  as  Protes- 
tants "  they  rejoiced  In  the  relaxation  of  the  penal 
laws.  And  the  annual  Presbyterian  synod  of  Ulster 
expressed  "  Its  satisfaction  at  the  admission  of  the 
Catholics  to  the  privileges  of  the  Constitution." 

"  In  the  same  year,  1793,  the  popularity  of  re- 
publican sentiments  at  Belfast  was  shown  by  the 
signs  representing  Mirabeau,  Dumourlez,  Franklin 
and  Washington,  which  hung  In  the  streets,  and  In 
March  a  fierce  riot  was  occasioned  by  a  party  of 
dragoons  who  attempted  to  cut  them  down." 

*'  Indignation  at  the  war  was  at  this  time  the 
[84] 


dominant  sentiment  of  the  Belfast  party.  .  .  .  They 
say  in  one  of  their  addresses,  '  Why  should  we  inter- 
fere because  France,  like  Cromwell,  has  killed  a 
guilty  king?  Let  the  rich  who  want  war  pay  for  it. 
The  people  are  starving.  Trade  in  all  its  branches 
is  paralyzed.  Yet  Ireland  has  no  cause  of  quarrel 
with  France.'  " 

"  Prayers  for  the  success  of  the  French  arms  had 
been  offered  up  at  Belfast  from  the  pulpit." 

Lecky  then  analyzes  the  practical  motives  under 
this  republicanism.  "  The  republican  religion  of  the 
Northern  Presbyterians  gave  them  some  bias  to- 
wards republican  government,  and  their  sympathy 
with  the  New  England  Puritans  in  the  contest  against 
England  had  been  passionate  and  avowed.  They 
had  scarcely  any  part  among  the  landed  gentry  of 
Ireland,  and  were  therefore  less  sensible  than  other 
Protestants  of  the  necessity  of  connection  with  Eng- 
land for  the  security  of  their  property.  .  .  .  Under 
the  existing  system  of  monopoly  they  had  scarcely 
any  political  power,  and  scarcely  any  share  in  the 
patronage  of  the  Crown.  An  intelligent,  educated, 
energetic  middle-class  community  naturally  resented 
such  a  system  of  exclusion  and  monopoly  far  more 
keenly  than  a  poor,  dependent,  and  perfectly  igno- 
rant Catholic  peasantry.  ...  It  is  an  undoubted 
and  most  remarkable  fact  that  almost  the  whole 
guiding  Influence  of  the  seditious  movement  in  1793 
was  Protestant  or  Deistical,  while  the  Catholic 
gentry,  the  Catholic  prelates,  and,  as  far  as  can  now 
be  judged,  the  bulk  of  the  Catholic  priesthood  were 
strongly  opposed  to  It." 

"  The  condition  of  Ulster  in  the  spring  of  1793 
was  so  serious  that  the  Government  strongly  urged 

[  85  ] 


the    necessity    of    sending    reinforcements    to    that 
province." 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Lecky,  the  anti-utili- 
tarian, catches  a  gleam  of  the  economic  motive  in 
this  republicanism.  The  Presbyterians  "  were  less 
sensible  than  other  Protestants  of  the  necessity  of 
connection  with  England  for  the  security  of  their 
property." 

SINCE    THE    INDUSTRIAL   REVOLUTION 

When,  however,  Belfast  became  homogeneous 
with  the  rest  of  capitalistic  England,  its  ideology 
underwent  a  complete  revolution. 

In  19 13  Ulstermen  "yield  to  no  man  in  their 
loyalty  to  the  king  and  to  the  Empire."  They  de- 
clare themselves  "  loyal  subjects  of  His  Gracious 
Majesty  King  George  V,"  "  the  King,  whose  faithful 
subjects  we  are  and  will  continue  all  our  days."  In 
19 13,  "  the  overwhelming  majority  are  passionately 
loyal  to  the  British  Throne  and  to  the  maintenance 
of  the  United  Kingdom." 

The  Ulstermen,  it  must  be  confessed,  did  not  make 
much  of  a  fist  of  loyalty  for  a  long  while.  Quite 
early  in  the  eighteenth  century  the  relations  between 
the  "  undertakers,"  the  oligarchs  of  confiscation,  and 
their  Presbyterian  tenants  were  severely  strained, 
and  emigration  to  America  was  often  chosen  in 
preference  to  rackrent.  The  name  of  Lord  Done- 
gall  was  identified  with  the  worst  oppression,  and 
"  illegal  associations  and  daring  outrages,"  with  the 
houghing  and  maiming  of  cattle  as  a  typical  Incident 
of  the  warfare,  culminated  In  what  Is  rightly  termed 
"  the  Ulster  land  war  of  1770."  The  government 
took  the  side  of  the  "  undertakers,"   so  that  the 

[  86  ] 


spirit  of  Ulster  emigrants  to  the  American  colonies 
was  strongly  antlgovernmental ;  and  the  way  was 
paved  for  the  United  Irishmen  movement  and  the 
general  revolutionary  infection  of  the  late  eighteenth 
century.  There  was  a  common  cause  at  that  hour  in 
Irish  history  between  the  dissenters  and  those  Catho- 
lics who  were  not  too  crushed  to  be  rebellious.  But 
the  Ingredients  of  conflict  were  not  taken  away  by 
this  goodwill.  There  were  always  secret  associa- 
tions on  both  sides  whose  principle  was  hatred  and 
whose  aim  was  extirpation.  Just  when  the  revolu- 
tionary movement  was  making  such  headway,  with 
the  example  of  France  inflaming  the  republicans  of 
Belfast,  a  few  tragedies  of  local  religious  hatred 
occurred.  The  terrible  murder  of  a  Protestant 
schoolteacher's  family  preceded  a  pitched  battle  be- 
tween Catholics  and  Protestants.  This  incident 
resurrected  hostility.  It  had  enormous  conse- 
quences. The  Orange  Society  was  formed  on  the 
very  evening  of  the  battle  of  the  Diamond;  and  hun- 
dreds of  Catholic  deportations  to  Connaught  were 
carried  out  under  the  eyes  of  the  authorities,  with  the 
double  effect  of  restoring  Ulstermen  to  the  side  of 
"  law  and  order  "  and  Inflaming  the  Catholic  coun- 
try people  against  the  government.  The  rebellion 
of  1798,  with  Its  50,000  casualties,  was  the  harvest 
of  many  sorrows,  but  the  men  of  Ulster  were  no 
longer  on  the  side  of  rebellion.  And  the  ferocity 
of  the  rebellion  deepened  and  widened  the  chasm. 
The  Ulster  unionists  are  homogeneous  with  the 
Scotch  and  English  liberal  unionists.  "  We  are  In 
Ireland  as  their  trustees,  having  had  committed  to 
us,  through  their  and  our  forefathers,  the  develop- 
ment of  the  material  resources  of  Ulster,  the  preser- 

[87] 


vation  of  Its  loyalty,  and  the  discharge  of  its  share 
of  imperial  obligations.  .  .  .  Ulster  Unionists, 
therefore,  having  conspicuously  succeeded  in  main- 
taining the  trust  committed  to  their  forefathers,  and 
constituting  a  community  intensely  loyal  to  the  Brit- 
ish connection,  believe  that  they  present  a  case  for 
the  unimpaired  maintenance  of  that  connection  which 
is  impregnable  on  the  grounds  of  racial  sentiments, 
inherent  justice,  social  well-being,  and  the  continued 
security  of  the  United  Kingdom  and  the  Empire. 
They  cannot  believe  that  their  British  fellow-citizens 
will,  at  this  crisis,  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  their  claim.  .  .  . 
We  shall  continue  to  support  our  King,  and  to  render 
the  same  services  to  the  United  Kingdom  and  to  the 
Empire  as  have  characterized  the  history  of  Ulster 
during  the  past  three  hundred  years." 

From  these  evidences  of  the  contrast  between 
1793  and  1913,  it  seems  highly  probable  that  Bel- 
fast, "  under  the  stress  of  economic  development," 
has  come  to  oppose  political  independence.  It  is  no 
less  probable  that  the  homogeneity  of  Irish  and 
Scotch  "  unionism  "  is  not  so  much  of  racial  senti- 
ment, etc.,  as  of  capitalist  industry.  In  its  economic 
utterances  one  finds  the  Belfast  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce entirely  dispensing  with  racial  sentiment.  Its 
grounds  for  desiring  union  are  stated  with  sincerity: 

"  The  fact  that  our  industrial  growth  is  due  to 
the  development  of  trade  with  England  and  Scot- 
land and  is  also  of  an  international  character,  and 
further  that  the  amount  of  trade  done  by  our  ship- 
building and  manufacturing  concerns  for  Irish  clients 
is  comparatively  trivial,  amply  justifies  our  desire 
for  the  maintenance  of  the  closest  relations  with 
Great  Britain  and  complete   association  with  the 

[  88] 


world-wide  prestige  of  the  United  Kingdom  in  which 
we  freely  participate." 

It  is  precisely  the  situation  that  M.  Alexinsky 
sketches  for  Poland.  "  In  pouring  its  merchandise 
into  the  Russian  markets,  Poland,  or  rather  the 
Polish  bourgeoisie,  had  to  abandon  the  old  dream  of 
political  independence.  The  appearance  on  the 
Russian  markets  of  Polish  fabrics,  of  Polish  coal 
and  Iron,  came  as  a  veritable  Finis  Polonlae,  for  it 
served  as  the  unshakeable  foundation  material  of 
political  unity  with  Russia."  A  statement  which, 
despite  the  war,  remains  significant. 

"  HOME    RULE    COVETS    ULSTER's    WEALTH  " 

The  thought  of  home  rule  makes  the  blood  of 
capitalism  run  colder  than  usual.  There  is  very  lit- 
tle about  "  the  horrible  harlot  "  In  the  property  argu- 
ment. The  whole  argument  Is  this,  "  Home  rule 
covets  Ulster's  wealth."  Under  the  government  of 
the  United  Kingdom,  the  Belfast  capitalists  believe 
that  they  have  the  power  to  control  their  own  future. 
Under  home  rule,  they  "  are  to  be  deprived  of  the 
power."  And  so  sensitive  Is  capital  to  this  impend- 
ing disadvantage  that  the  mere  introduction  of  the 
bill  "  has  seriously  shaken  credit."  This  manifesta- 
tion of  "  Insecurity  and  suspicion  "  leads  the  Belfast 
capitalists  to  utter  a  very  genuine  estimate  of  the 
Irish  Inability  to  make  good.  "  Ireland  possesses 
neither  the  natural  resources,  the  capital,  nor  the 
unity  of  race  or  interest  capable  of  enabling  it  suc- 
cessfully to  stand  alone  without  the  support  of  Im- 
perial credit." 

Regardless,  then,  of  political  and  religious  differ- 
ences, the  Ulster  leaders  find  in  the  agriculturalism 

[  89  ] 


of  southern  Ireland  a  "  very  serious  danger."  And 
they  do  not  hesitate  to  characterize  their  opposition 
to  home  rule  as  "  the  bitter  hostility  of  the  most 
progressive  and  industrial  part  "  of  Ireland. 

It  is  only  fair  to  the  capitalists  to  record  the  strong 
sentiment  against  the  agricultural  south  that  also 
possesses  one  branch  of  the  Ulster  trade  unionists. 
These  trade  unionists,  who  confess  that  they  "  are 
the  cream  of  Ulster  Democracy,"  Issued  their  own 
manifesto  in  April,  1914.  Their  quality  may  be 
judged  by  their  leading  arguments,  which  were  as 
follows : 

1.  "The  Dublin  Parliament  may  fix  a  minimum 
wage  for  Ireland  and  the  British  Parliament  may  fix 
a  minimum  wage  for  Britain.  The  Irish  minimum 
would  in  all  probability  be  lower." 

This  is  a  short-sighted  argument.  Since,  as  they 
admit,  trade  unionism  has  protested  in  vain 
"  against  the  separate  treatment  of  England,  Scot- 
land, Wales  and  Ireland  under  the  Insurance  Act," 
what  guarantee  could  there  be  that  the  imperial  par- 
liament would  establish  a  uniform  minimum  wage? 

2.  "  Under  an  Irish  Parliament,  controlled  by 
small  farmers,  the  Factory  Acts  and  the  Factory 
Regulations  would  remain  a  dead  letter." 

The  word  "  remain  "  Is  amusing. 

3.  "  In  the  South  and  West  of  Ireland,  where 
Industrial  development  Is  less  complete,  labor  is  not 
organized  as  It  Is  In  Ulster  or  In  England  and  in 
Scotland  and  is  therefore  largely  powerless  to  de- 
fend Itself." 

Thus  these  Ulstermen,  from  "  the  only  part  of  the 
country  where  labor  is  fully  organized  and  articu- 
late," announce  their  magnanimous  sense  of  the  soli- 

[  90]  - 


darity  of  labor.  They  do  not  correlate  the  defence- 
lessness  of  labor  elsewhere  with  their  own  proud 
boast,  "  the  birthright  of  British  citizenship  under 
British  administration."  British  administration, 
after  all,  extends  to  those  forlorn  places  where  labor 
is  defenceless. 

4.  "  With  an  Irish  Parliament  in  power  the 
sweating  of  labor,  which  In  Dublin  with  all  its  con- 
comitant evils  of  poverty,  slums  and  degradation  has 
so  keenly  aroused  your  sympathy,  will  be  possible 
In  Belfast."  The  brave  Dublin  revolt  of  19 13  did 
not  suggest  that  Dublin  labor  would  stand  still. 

5.  "  You  will  find  forty-two  Irish  members  at 
Westminster  ready  to  back  up  their  Dublin  parlia- 
ment and  vote  down  your  measures  of  fair  play  for 
the  workers.  .  .  .  We  know  that  the  privileges  won 
for  the  workers  of  trade  unionism  are  In  danger." 
This  Is  a  free  use  of  the  gift  of  prophecy. 

Later  In  April,  19 14,  the  following  additional  as- 
sertions were  added  at  a  large  meeting  of  Unionist 
organized  labor: 

6.  Home  rule  "  would  cut  us  off  from  participa- 
tion In  the  social  and  Industrial  Improvements  which 
will  come  to  our  fellow-trade-unionists  In  Great 
Britain  by  reason  of  the  pressure  the  powerful  cross- 
channel  labor  organizations  will  be  able  to  exert  on 
legislation  In  the  Imperial  Parliament." 

So  much,  at  the  present,  for  the  economic  particu- 
larism of  Ulster. 

THE    PROSPERITY   OF    ULSTER 

How  Ulster  came  to  be  so  prosperous  under  the 
union,  when  the  rest  of  Ireland  wallowed  in  poverty 
and  ignorance,   Is  one  of  the   riddles   of  Ireland. 

[  91  ] 


This  riddle  requires  one  to  recall  confiscation,  the 
penal  laws,  the  destruction  of  Catholic  capital.  The 
enforced  degradation  of  the  Catholic  Irish  during  the 
eighteenth  century  is  one  of  the  commonplaces  of 
history.  Ireland's  "  industrial  activities,"  Sir  Ed- 
ward Carson  proclaims,  "  were  strangled  by  the 
short-sighted  jealousy  of  English  commercial  in- 
terests." For  the  short  period  at  the  end  of  the 
century  in  which  Grattan's  parliament  flourished  the 
fortunes  of  Ireland  improved.  Instead  of  savage 
commercial  restriction  Ireland  had  commercial  en- 
couragement, and  with  excellent  results.  Soon  after 
the  union,  purchased  by  Pitt  from  the  ascendancy 
legislators  to  give  Britain  security,  the  wars  ended 
and  with  them  the  prosperous  agricultural  inter- 
lude; and  the  agricultural  Irish,  three-quarters  of 
the  people,  headed  straight  for  the  catastrophe  of 
the  great  famine.  The  issue  of  landlordism,  how- 
ever, had  been  settled  in  Ulster  after  1770,  and  flax, 
a  specialized  crop,  went  forward.  Flax  gave  Ulster 
its  industrial  foothold.  In  the  last  quarter  of  a 
century  the  south  has  once  more  begun  to  achieve  a 
measure  of  material  well-being,  but  Ulster  had  a 
long  time  in  which  to  associate  Its  superior  fortunes 
with  the  union  and  to  shrink  more  and  more  from 
partnership  with  the  retarded  south.  I  do  not  wish 
to  give  the  impression,  however,  that  I  think  the 
riddle  of  Ulster  a  negligible  one.  The  economic 
imagination  of  nationalist  Irishmen  is  untrained. 
Their  policies  are  often  local  and  provisional  to  a 
degree.  Their  tendency  is  often  stubbornly  conserv- 
ative. Under  the  circumstances  there  is  a  case  for 
Ulster's  particularism.  It  ought  never  to  be  dis- 
missed. 

[  92  ] 


It  ought  never  to  be  dismissed  because  it  is  the 
business  of  statesmanship  to  face  problems,  not  to 
stifle  them.  So  far  as  Orange  Ulster  is  not  merely- 
suspicious,  superstitious  and  hypothetical  (promising 
to  do  what  Mr.  Veblen  said  Germany  actually  does, 
"  take  war  by  the  forelock  and  retaliate  on  presump- 
tive enemies  for  prospective  grievances  ")  it  has 
to  be  dealt  understanding,  not  blows.  If  Irishmen 
are  not  willing  to  say  with  Sir  Edward  Carson:  "  the 
remedy  is  revolution,"  then  Disraeli's  answer  must 
be  applied.  "  The  Irish  could  not  have  a  revolu- 
tion, and  why?  Because  Ireland  is  connected  with 
another  and  more  powerful  country.  Then  what  is 
the  consequence?  The  connection  with  England  be- 
came the  cause  of  the  present  state  of  Ireland.  .  .  . 
What,  then,  is  the  duty  of  an  English  Minister? 
To  effect  by  his  policy  all  those  changes  which  a 
revolution  would  do  by  force.  This  is  the  Irish 
question  in  its  integrity."  It  is  the  question  of  all 
government,  in  its  integrity,  and  applies  to  Ulster 
as  well  as  nationalist  Ireland. 

THE    RUIN    OF    IRELAND 

When  Disraeli  said  that  "  Ireland  is  connected 
with  another  and  a  more  powerful  country "  he 
clearly  naturalized  the  Irish  difficulty  with  England 
just  as  he  had  shown  how  rebels  are  made.  Because 
England  is  strong  and  Ireland  weak,  their  relations 
are  essentially  difficult.  This  difficulty  does  not  in- 
here in  the  character  of  the  English,  or  the  charac- 
ter of  the  Irish,  so  much  as  in  their  unfortunate 
juxtaposition.  If  Ireland  were  a  dominant  indus- 
trial country  commanded  by  successful  men  like  W. 
M.    Murphy,    the   Dublin   capitalist,    and  England 

[  93  ] 


were  an  agricultural  country  peopled  by  Idealists  like 
Charles  Lamb,  the  juxtaposition  would  be  equally 
unfortunate  and  equally  difficult.  What  creates 
that  difficulty  Is  not,  as  John  Mitchel  supposed,  the 
specially  evil  nature  of  the  English  nation.  It  Is  the 
specially  evil  temptations  of  power  In  dealing  with 
powerlessness. 

No  one  can  fairly  say  that  the  law  of  life  Is  the 
law  of  the  wolf-pack.  Babies  are  weak,  and  old 
people  are  weak,  but  It  is  a  foible  of  civilization  to 
support  them.  Neither  can  one  say  that  the  wealthy 
are  always  unjust  and  unscrupulous,  while  the  poor 
are  always  scrupulous  and  just.  This  Is  the  most 
enervating  fallacy  In  life  —  It  Is  pure  sentimental- 
Ism.  It  was  amiable  of  James  Russell  Lowell  to 
sing,  "  Truth  forever  on  the  scaffold,  wrong  forever 
on  the  throne  " —  but  too  many  kings  have  been  exe- 
cuted to  make  It  arguable.  Yet  while  powerlessness 
Is  not  necessarily  right,  neither  is  it  necessarily 
wrong.  To  explain  that  injustice  is  simply  the  un- 
pleasant aspect  of  the  process  of  selection  is  to  Imply 
that  everything  which  happens  is  bound  to  happen, 
and  that  to  bemoan  evil  Is  equivalent  to  bemoaning 
the  law  of  gravity.  In  a  practical  world  It  is  saga- 
cious to  circumvent  evil  rather  than  bemoan  it. 
But  this  Is  very  different  from  saying  that  men  must 
not  fight  on  the  side  of  the  angels.  On  the  contrary, 
it  defines  evil  as  a  detestable  reality  against  which 
we  are  made  to  resist. 

No  humanist  can  read  history  without  a  sickening 
sense  of  Its  futile  and  wasteful  antagonisms.  Just 
as  murders  constantly  take  place  in  an  Insensate 
quarrel  over  a  mistake  In  change  or  a  trifling  rude- 
ness —  usually  in  hot  weather  —  so  nations  will  go 

[  94  ] 


to  war  over  the  most  paltry  disagreements.  To  say 
that  these  conflicts  are  part  of  a  great  process  of 
selection  is  fantastic  nonsense.  A  man  does  not 
kick  the  dog  because  of  a  biological  feud.  He  kicks 
the  dog  because  his  wife  has  whined  over  his  losses 
at  cards.  The  dog  is  a  vicarious  atonement.  The 
only  selection  in  the  case  is  that  he  kicks  a  fox-terrier 
rather  than  a  bull-terrier,  for  reasons  best  known  to 
the  dog.  It  is  just  in  this  discrimination  that  the 
evil  of  strength  is  revealed.  When  a  creature  is  so 
weak  that  it  cannot  hit  back,  it  invites  injustice.  If 
a  "  brute  "  has  a  "  nasty  "  disposition,  no  one  will 
"  meddle  "  with  the  brute.  But  If  the  brute  Is  weak, 
the  brute  will  suffer.  No  one  who  has  lived  In  Ire- 
land has  been  able  to  discover  the  suspension  of  this 
law.  There  Is  nothing,  for  example,  that  would  fill 
me  with  greater  horror  than  to  be  re-Incarnated  as 
an  Irish  donkey  or  an  Irish  cow.  Just  out  of  ig- 
norance and  stupidity,  an  immense  amount  of  suffer- 
ing is  inflicted  on  dumb  animals  in  Ireland.  The 
most  partisan  friend  of  the  Irish  tenantry  Is  revolted 
at  the  Injustice  of  cattle-maiming,  and  while  this 
practice  began  in  Ulster  before  1770,  It  Is  the  worst 
specimen  of  sabotage  in  the  world.  There  Is  some- 
thing not  incomprehensible  about  the  Idea  of  murder- 
ing a  landlord.  A  dead  gombeen  man  Is  a  good 
gombeen  man.  But  when  the  Irish  pick  out  cattle 
for  vengeance  they  put  themselves  almost  In  a  class 
with  imperialists. 

THE    ECONOMIC   MOTIVE 

But  there  is  this  difference  between  cattle-malmers 
and  imperialists.  The  latter  are  perverted  through 
power,  the  former  through  powerlessness.     When 

[95  ] 


there  is  obdurate  force  on  one  side,  the  only  possible 
reprisal  will  be  lawless.  It  is  all  very  well  to  say 
that  militant  minorities  are  venomous,  vindictive  and 
malicious.  But  when  the  strong  enforce  their  will 
regardless  of  a  minority's  imperious  needs,  those 
imperious  needs  will  turn  poisonous.  "  Suppressed 
desires  breed  pestilence."  It  is  a  commonplace  of 
human  relations  that  justice  between  unequals  is 
scarcely  possible.  We  respect  the  plea  of  an  ad- 
versary who  can  damage  us  if  we  slight  him.  We 
slur  the  plea  of  an  adversary  who  is  powerless  to 
punish.  We  give  a  tiger  a  wide  berth.  When  the 
strong  impose  their  will  by  the  unsparing  use  of 
arms,  the  weak  either  yield  in  sullen  slavery,  or  learn 
the  ways  of  desperation.  When  a  horrible  murder 
occurred  during  the  Irish  land  war,  Robert  Louis 
Stevenson  wanted  to  become  Ireland's  catechist  and 
take  up  residence  In  the  district  that  was  proclaimed. 
It  was  perilously  near  priggishness.  Subsequent 
legislation  has  admitted  that  the  land  agitators  were 
fighting  a  just  cause  against  a  blind  and  brutal  in- 
terest. Stevenson  could  perceive  with  startling 
clearness  the  baseness  of  Curtin's  murder.  He 
failed  utterly  to  perceive  the  wretchedness,  the  impo- 
tence, the  degradation  in  which  that  murder  spurted 
up  like  a  flame  out  of  poisonous  gases.  Stevenson's 
was  static  morality.  He  applied  to  the  peasants  of 
Kerry  the  standards  of  his  own  existence.  Had  he 
lived  in  Kerry,  he  would  have  regarded  the  murder 
as  the  finer  Kerrymen  did  —  with  horror,  with  re- 
gret, with  comprehension.  I  do  not  say  that  mur- 
der Is  not  murder.  Yes,  murder  is  murder.  But 
against  the  cowardly  murder  of  Curtin  I  set  a  thou- 
sand cowardly  murders  perpetrated  by  the  landlords 

[  96] 


of  Ireland.  In  Kerry  men  were  asked  to  pay  rent 
on  acres  of  bog  where  the  potatoes  were  so  few  that 
you  might  have  given  them  pet  names.  In  spite  of 
the  most  Spartan  virtue,  the  most  extraordinary 
discipline  and  heroism,  those  bogs  would  sometimes 
yield  insufficient  for  life  —  and  yet  the  land-agent 
sweated  rent  out  of  tenants'  bones.  And  then  the 
tenants  revolted!  They  decided  to  make  landlord- 
Ism  tedious  and  unpractical,  to  put  their  faggots  to- 
gether into  an  unbreakable  bundle.  In  this  plan  of 
combination,  the  landlords  found  a  flaw.  By  in- 
stalling blacklegs,  grabbers,  emergency  men,  scabs, 
or  whatever  you  choose  to  call  them,  in  the  place  of 
evicted  tenants,  they  were  able  to  preserve  their 
sacred  right  of  property.  Against  these  blacklegs 
the  sweated  tenants  of  Kerry  had  no  legal  weapon. 
The  only  weapon  they  had  was  boycott,  the  shotgun 
and  the  knife.  They  first  tried  boycotting,  and 
starving  the  blacklegs.  When  this  failed,  they  tried 
the  shotgun  and  the  knife.  Seen  from  the  country 
house,  these  were  hideous  means  of  adjusting  a 
mere  question  like  rent.  But  they  were  the  only 
means  known  to  remote  and  friendless  men.  And, 
strange  to  say,  they  pointed  the  agrarian  moral. 

That  moral  has  been  put  in  a  word  by  Lord  Acton. 
When  Law  and  Order  told  him  that  "  murder  is 
murder,"  he  retorted  that  its  spokesmen  *'  do  not 
choose  to  distinguish  murder  from  insurrection." 
I  cannot  wonder  at  Stevenson,  however.  Our 
privileged  position  seems  as  natural  as  an  atmos- 
phere. It  Is  Invisible  when  we  live  surrounded  by 
it.  It  Is  only  observable  when  we  recede  from  It, 
like  the  blue  of  a  mountain. 

All  through  this  chapter  I  have  striven  to  show 
[97  ] 


the  existence  in  Ireland  of  another  motive  besides 
the  obvious  political  motive.  The  confiscations,  the 
penal  laws,  the  republicanism  of  Ulster,  the  land 
war,  the  tithes,  the  revolt  of  Ulster  in  19 12,  all  have 
In  them  something  besides  self-Interest  and  privilege. 
But  It  is  wise  to  seek  beneath  the  nationalism  of 
Ulster  and  the  rest  of  Ireland  this  skeleton  of  eco- 
nomics. The  skeleton  is  not  the  whole  of  national- 
ity, but  without  it  nationality  does  not  exist. 


[98] 


IV 
THE  WAYS  OF  NATIONALISM 

FISHING   AND    CATCHING   IT 

One  evening,  in  a  country  hotel  in  Ireland,  an 
American  friend  and  myself  fell  Into  conversation 
with  a  visiting  Englishman.  Unlike  many  men  who 
view  strangers  as  the  evil  they  do  not  know,  he  was  a 
sociable  soul,  and  he  took  a  fancy  to  the  American. 
He  could  talk  to  strangers  about  real  things  without 
feeling  next  morning  that  he  had  lost  his  social  chas- 
tity. He  was  of  middle  age,  just  retired  on  pension 
from  the  engineer  corps  in  India,  and  while  his  stocky 
build,  ruddy  face,  curt  nose,  and  bull-dog  set  of  head 
suggested  the  fighter,  he  had  a  charming,  soothing 
voice,  and  a  really  winning  manner.  There  was 
honey  in  the  lion's  mouth. 

The  conversation  turned  to  India,  to  Imperialism, 
to  the  problems  of  mastery,  to  the  subtlety  and  shifti- 
ness of  the  Hindu.  In  his  quiet  voice,  the  English- 
man explained  to  us  (assuming  we  were  both  Ameri- 
cans) the  exigencies  of  authority  in  India,  and  I 
remember  how  Impressive  he  made  his  account  of 
the  firmness  and  fearlessness  by  which  he  secured 
obedience  to  his  will. 

He  sketched,  I  remember,  one  of  his  own  minor 
encounters.  He  had  ruled  that  two  mone3^-lending 
Pathans  should  be  excluded  from  his  railroad  shops. 
One  day,  in  the  centre  of  the  shop,  these  two  tall 

[  99  ] 


lithe  fellows  emerged  unsuspectingly  from  behind  a 
stalled  engine  and  walked  into  his  arms.  That  in- 
stant he  realized  that  a  thousand  eyes  were  upon 
him,  waiting  to  judge  what  he  would  do.  To  handle 
both  was  impossible.  To  handle  one  was  to  help  the 
other.  Without  hesitation,  he  chose  the  man 
checked  between  him  and  the  repair  pit.  Before  the 
Pathan  could  fence,  he  felled  him,  into  the  pit.  At 
that  moment,  he  said,  his  spine  was  curved  to  take  a 
knife  blade  in  his  back.  He  twisted  to  avoid  the 
blow.  But  there  was  no  one  behind  him.  The 
other  Pathan  had  fled.  This  incident  had  supreme 
value.  The  thousand  eyes  reverted  to  work;  the 
white  man  was  the  conqueror,  or,  as  we  suggested, 
the  God. 

To  this  Englishman  there  was  never  a  question  of 
cooperation  with  the  native.  The  native  was  a 
child.  It  is  fatal  to  give  in  to  a  child.  The  white 
man's  authority  must  be  absolute.  He  must  be  dis- 
interested and  fair,  but  he  must  be  firm  and  final. 
He  must  never  apologize,  qualify,  or  recede,  and 
when  his  authority  is  challenged  he  must  make  the 
punishment  memorable.  In  a  few  words  he  illus- 
trated his  sovereignty  —  how  he  gained  the  natives' 
confidence,  took  silent  cognizance  of  the  refractory, 
humiliated  them  in  his  own  time  and  place,  gradually 
established  his  prestige  and  will.  It  was  a  frank 
and  far  from  egotistic  confession.  He  had  studied 
the  native  with  an  eye  single  to  the  service.  He  took 
pride  in  his  success,  but  it  was  the  pride  of  a  horse 
trainer  who  is  fond  of  the  horses  he  has  broken,  and 
who  would  disdain  the  brutal  trainer  as  much  as 
the  ineffectual. 

From  India  we  progressed  to  the  "  little  brown 
[  loo  ] 


brother ''  of  the  Philippines,  to  the  United  States, 
and  finally  to  Ireland. 

This  was  his  first  visit  to  Ireland.  He  had  been 
in  the  country  ten  days,  and  it  had  resolved  itself 
into  a  prolonged  stay  at  this  one  hotel  for  the  sake  of 
fly-fishing,  so  that  he  had  kept  his  undisturbed  view 
of  the  native  Irishman.  "  One  is  so  struck,"  he 
said  with  an  amused  smile,  "  by  their  eagerness  and 
courtesy.  They  are  so  anxious  to  please  one  that 
they  steal  one's  own  words  and  hand  them  back 
with  a  compliment.  But,"  and  he  became  quite 
grave,  "  of  course  I  realize  that  concealed  beneath 
their  courtesy  and  gentleness  is  the  deepest  treachery 
and  cruelty." 

The  Englishman  did  not  realize  that  one  of  his 
listeners  whom  he  thought  a  normal  human  being 
was  only  an  Irishman,  When  Apollonius  looked 
upon  the  serpent  bride,  his  eye,  "  like  a  sharp  spear, 
went  through  her  utterly."  In  a  similar  manner, 
though  without  cruel  intention,  the  Englishman 
transfixed  me.  It  would  have  been  all  right,  per- 
haps, if  my  American  friend  had  not  known  I  was  a 
Lamia.  I  could  then  have  continued  "  happy  in 
beauty,  life,  and  love,  and  everything."  But  with 
our  evil  national  character  so  exposed  to  the  Ameri- 
can, and  with  a  wink  impossible,  I  was  compelled  to 
confess. 

"  I'm  afraid  I've  given  you  a  false  impression," 
I  said.  "  I  have  spoken  as  an  American,  since  I  live 
there,  but  I  was  born  and  brought  up  in  Ireland.  I 
am  an  Irishman.  I  am  deeply  interested  in  what 
you  say,  and  I  wish  you  would  go  on." 

Being  a  God,  It  was  rather  hard  on  the  little  Eng- 
lishman.    He  could  neither  apologize,  quahfy,  nor 

[  loi  ] 


recede.  Being  a  gentle  soul,  as  well  as  a  God,  he 
was  pained  at  his  predicament,  and  when  he  resorted 
to  the  soft  class  explanation  —  that  there  was  no  one 
more  delightful  than  the  cultivated  Irishman,  and 
that  he  meant  the  uneducated,  illiterate  peasant  — 
I  made  things  worse  by  bringing  forth  my  "  peas- 
ant "  relatives.  The  conversation  limped  back  to 
fly-fishing. 

Most  Irishmen,  I  believe,  would  have  felt  so 
angry  as  to  strike  the  Englishman.  I  felt,  as  Mr. 
Chamberlain  once  said  he  felt  about  the  attacks  of 
William  O'Brien,  that  it  was  only  pretty  Fanny's 
way.  Hundreds  of  years  before,  this  theory  of  the 
Irishman  had  been  formulated  by  Englishmen  badly 
in  need  of  the  theory  and,  once  formulated,  it  had 
swum  down  the  stream  of  tradition  between  the 
shores  of  experience,  to  be  poured  out  to  Americans 
as  gospel  truth. 

BACK  TO   MILTON 

John  Milton  was  a  great  lover  of  truth.  He  was 
the  invincible  ally  of  justice  and  truth  against  "  two 
the  most  prevailing  usurpers  over  mankind,  super- 
stition and  tyranny."  He  sought  a  commonwealth 
"  where  no  single  person,  but  Reason  only  sways." 
So  much  did  he  love  justice  and  truth  that  he  was 
ever  enraged  against  their  enemies.  Thus  the 
royalists  were  tigers  of  Bacchus,  "  inspired  with 
nothing  holier  than  the  venereal  pox."  Kingship 
was  "  an  abjured  and  detested  thraldom."  Its  ad- 
herents had  "  not  so  much  true  spirit  and  under- 
standing In  them  as  a  pismire."  When  the  Ulster 
Presbytery  in  1649  spoke  of  the  republicans  as  serv- 
ants riding  upon  horses,  men  who  labored  "  to  es- 
[  102  ] 


tabllsh  by  laws  an  universal  toleration  of  all  reli- 
gions which  is  an  innovation  overturning  of  unity 
in  religion,  and  so  directly  repugnant  to  the  word  of 
God,"  Milton  rended  them  as  upstarts,  "  a  gener- 
ation of  highland  thieves  and  redshanks  admitted, 
by  the  courtesy  of  England,  to  hold  possessions  in 
our  province,  a  country  better  than  their  own." 
Theirs  was  "  an  insolent  and  seditious  representa- 
tion," emanating  from  Belfast,  "  a  barbarous  nook 
of  Ireland."  He  could  think  of  nothing  worse  than 
to  identify  the  Presbytery  with  the  papists.  "  Their 
own  unexampled  virulence  hath  wrapt  them  Into  the 
same  guilt,  made  them  accomplices  and  assistants  to 
the  abhorred  Irish  rebels." 

When  it  came  to  the  Irish  people,  Milton's  love 
of  justice  and  reason  goaded  him  to  fury.  Mur- 
ders, massacres,  treasons  and  piracies  were  the  sign- 
manual  of  those  bloody  rebels,  "  those  inhuman 
rebels  and  papists  of  Ireland."  They  were  merci- 
less and  barbarous,  treacherous,  sottish  and  in- 
docible,  "  a  crew  of  rebels  whose  inhumanities  are 
long  since  become  the  horror  and  execration  of  all 
that  hear  them."     Thus  the  author  of  L'Allegro. 

In  this  spirit  of  justice  and  right  reason  John  Mil- 
ton sketched  the  history  of  Ireland.  "  Ancient 
piracies,  cruel  captivities  and  the  causeless  infesta- 
tion of  our  coast  "  were  the  predatory  activities  of 
the  Irish.  Their  conquerors  were  warrantably 
called  over  in  "  just  revenge."  "  By  their  own  fore- 
going demerits  and  provocations  "  exclaimed  the 
righteous  and  God-fearing  Milton,  "  they  were  justly 
made  our  vassals." 

To  strengthen  the  cause  against  the  Irish  bar- 
barians Milton  seized  on  the  appalling  fact  that  they 

[  103  ] 


ploughed  horses  by  the  tail  and  burned  oats  in  the 
straw.  They  actually  "  prefer  their  own  absurd  and 
savage  customs  before  the  most  convincing  evidence 
of  reason  and  demonstration;  a  testimony  of  their 
true  barbarism  and  obdurate  wilfulness,  to  be  ex- 
pected no  less  in  other  matters  of  greatest  moment." 

One  can  imagine,  then,  the  villainy  of  Charles  the 
First  who  sanctioned  the  recalling  of  Poyning's  act, 
thus  disallieging  "  a  whole  feudary  kingdom  from 
the  ancient  dominion  of  England."  This  was  an  act 
that  put  the  Irish  parliament  absolutely  under  the 
tutelage  of  the  English.  Its  recall,  says  Milton  in 
that  tone  of  solemn  and  reverberant  horror  which 
would  so  well  befit  a  Roman  pontiff,  "  tends  openly 
to  invest  them  with  a  law-giving  power  of  their  own, 
enables  them  by  degrees  to  throw  off  all  subjection 
to  this  realm,  and  renders  them  (who  by  their  end- 
less treasons  and  revolts  have  deserved  to  hold  no 
parliament  at  all,  but  to  be  governed  by  edicts  and 
garrisons)  as  absolute  and  supreme  in  that  assem- 
bly, as  the  people  of  England  in  their  own  land." 

It  was  consistent  that  when  John  Milton  turned 
to  England  he  should  be  equally  single-minded, 
equally  righteous,  equally  authoritarian.  Those 
who  think  of  England  as  essentially  disciplined  and 
stable  will  scarcely  be  prepared  to  understand 
Milton's  characterization.  It  merely  proves  the 
naivete  of  those  Englishmen  who  ascribe  to  their 
race  the  virtues,  if  they  are  virtues,  that  have  come 
with  altered  circumstance.  "  I  know  not  therefore 
what  should  be  peculiar  to  England,  to  make  suc- 
cessive parliaments  thought  safest,"  declares  this 
advocate  of  a  perpetual  senate,  "  or  convenient  here 
more  than  in  other  nations,  unless  it  be  the  fickleness, 

[  104  ] 


which  is  attributed  to  us  as  we  are  islanders:  but 
good  education  and  acquisite  wisdom  ought  to  cor- 
rect the  fluxible  fault,  if  any  such  be,  of  our  watery 
situation." 

The  idea  of  subjection,  utterly  repugnant  to  Mil- 
ton in  his  own  regard,  seemed  wholly  just  and  neces- 
sary in  regard  to  the  Irish.  "  They  who  seek  noth- 
ing but  their  own  just  liberty,  have  always  right  to 
win  it  and  to  keep  it,  whenever  they  have  power,  be 
the  voices  never  so  numerous  that  oppose  it."  So 
he  spoke  for  his  own  party.  But  when  the  Irish 
sought  liberty  they  were  "  a  mixed  rabble,  part 
papists,  part  fugitives,  and  part  savages."  When 
authority  takes  this  tone,  the  Irishman  is  seldom  at 
a  loss  to  repudiate  it.  Even  today  these  words  of 
the  Cromwellian  are  potent  to  arouse  an  Irishman, 
to  incite  him  against  the  detestable,  the  "  horrid 
insolencies  "  of  such  mailed  egoism.  But  it  was  by 
no  means  a  tone  confined  to  the  republican  Milton. 
One  can  trace  it  back  through  Bacon  to  the  very 
first  chroniclers  of  Strongbow's  invasion. 

THE   KING   JAMES   VERSION 

In  Professor  Henry  Jones  Ford's  history  of  The 
Scotch-Irish  in  America  there  is  a  quotation  from 
Bacon  in  regard  to  the  singular  favor  of  Divine 
Providence  by  which  a  work  of  "  supreme  pre-emi- 
nence "  ("the  plantation  of  the  great  and  noble 
parts  of  the  island  of  Ireland  ")  had  been  put  in  the 
hand  of  King  James.  Bacon  owned  his  view  of  the 
wild  Irish,  their  "  barbarous  laws,  customs,  their 
brehon  laws,  habits  of  apparel,  their  poets  or  heralds 
that  enchant  them  in  savage  manners,  and  sundry 
other  dregs  of  barbarism  and  rebellion."     The  mis- 

[  105  ] 


slon  of  civilizing  the  Irish,  of  bringing  light  to 
them  and  at  the  same  time  exporting  troublesome 
Britons,  appealed  to  Bacon.  There  was,  as  Lord 
Ernest  Hamilton  says,  a  chance  of  "  quieting  the 
unruly  Border  country  and  colonizing  Ulster  with 
one  and  the  same  stroke."  Bacon  nursed  the  proj- 
ect and  urged  the  grandeur  of  the  future  "  when  peo- 
ple of  barbarous  manners  are  brought  to  give  over 
and  discontinue  their  customs  of  revenge  and  blood, 
of  dissolute  life,  and  of  theft,  and  of  rapine;  and 
to  give  ear  to  the  wisdom  of  laws  and  govern- 
ments." 

This  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury. But  long  before,  during  the  first  conquest  by 
Strongbow,  Giraldus  Cambrensis  had  come  to  real- 
ize the  baneful  character  of  the  Irish  and  Irish  in- 
stitutions. "This  race  is  a  race  of  savages:  I  say 
again  a  race  of  utter  savages.  For  not  merely  are 
they  uncouth  of  garb,  but  they  also  let  their  hair  and 
beards  grow  to  an  outrageous  length,  something  like 
the  new-fangled  fashion  which  has  lately  come  in 
with  us.  In  short,  all  their  ways  are  brutish  and 
unseemly.   .   .  . 

"  The  Creator  has  done  his  part  in  giving  them 
of  His  best;  but  where  there  is  any  call  for  effort  on 
their  part  they  are  worthless." 

Their  matchless  skill  in  instrumental  music  de- 
lighted Giraldus.  He  discoursed  upon  it  at  length 
but  only  the  more  to  urge  severe  government  for 
their  light  natures.  "  Whenever,  at  the  promptings 
of  their  natural  fickleness,  they  dare  to  break  the 
peace,  immediately  all  appearance  of  mildness  must 
be  put  aside  and  sharp  chastisement  follow  at  once 
upon  the  offence."     For  their  villainy  and  foul  du- 

[  io6  ] 


plicity  are  notable.  "  The  Irish  are  beyond  all 
other  nations  given  to  treachery:  they  hold  to  their 
bond  with  no  one.  While  expecting  absolute  good 
faith  from  others,  their  own  word,  their  oath,  given 
though  it  may  have  been  under  the  most  solemn 
sanctions  of  religion,  they  daily  violate  without 
shame  or  fear.  So  when  you  have  taken  the  great- 
est forethought  for  your  protection  from  danger  or 
from  loss  by  receiving  pledges  and  hostages,  when 
you  have  firmly,  as  you  think,  cemented  the  obliga- 
tions of  friendships,  conferred  every  kindness  in 
your  power,  and  apparently  made  all  safe  with  the 
utmost  vigilance,  then  begin  to  fear;  for  then  espe- 
cially is  their  malice  on  the  watch  for  its  chance, 
since  they  foresee  that,  owing  to  the  very  multitude 
of  your  precaution,  you  will  not  be  on  the  watch 
yourself. 

"  Then  will  they  fly  to  their  foul  arts,  then  to  the 
weapons  of  guile,  the  use  of  which  they  know  so 
well,  hoping  in  your  confidence  to  find  their  oppor- 
tunity of  striking  an  unexpected  blow." 

THE    UNBROKEN    TRADITION 

Is  there  any  connection  between  these  estimates 
of  the  Irish  and  the  task  of  holding  and  governing 
rich  colonial  territory?  So  far  as  barbarism  is  con- 
cerned, the  answer  is  to  be  taken  from  historical  spe- 
cialists. The  conscientious  study  of  Gaelic  culture 
and  early  Irish  institutions  has  progressed  greatly 
in  the  last  fifty  years,  and  the  more  disinterested  in- 
quiries leave  little  doubt,  as  I  understand  it,  that 
the  men  I  have  quoted  were  plainly  believing  what 
they  wanted  to  believe.  In  regard  to  character  the 
marvelous  and  incredible  fact  is  that  the  manner  of 

[  107  ] 


Interpreting  the  Irish  people  for  official  purposes 
has  scarcely  wavered  in  over  seven  centuries.  Thus, 
In  June,  19 14,  the  office  of  the  inspector  general  of 
the  royal  Irish  constabulary  gave  the  English  chief 
secretary  for  Ireland  the  latest  colonization  verdict 
on  Irish  character:  "  Obedience  to  law  has  never 
been  a  prominent  characteristic  of  the  people.  In 
times  of  passion  or  excitement  the  law  has  only  been 
maintained  by  force,  and  this  has  been  rendered 
practicable  owing  to  the  want  of  cohesion  among  the 
crowds  hostile  to  the  police.  If  the  people  become 
armed  and  drilled  effective  police  control  will  van- 
ish." 

The  Irish  people  "  are  easily  led,  and  it  is  the 
more  Incumbent  on  government  to  nip  lawlessness 
and  disorder  in  the  bud."  This  Is  from  another 
police  official  In  the  full  light  of  the  twentieth  cen- 
turv.  The  habit  of  generalizing  about  the  Irish  Is 
contagious.  The  royal  commission  on  the  19 16  re- 
bellion in  Ireland  contributed  numerous  wise  reflec- 
tions, of  which  I  quote  the  following:  "  Irishmen 
no  doubt  appreciate  the  maintenance  of  order,  but 
they  appear  to  have  an  Inveterate  prejudice  against 
the  punishment  of  disorder." 

These  are  official  opinions  passed  by  the  servants 
of  the  crown  on  the  people  of  Ireland.  They  are 
still  essentially  the  opinions  of  colonization.  A 
franker  and  ruder  expression  of  the  same  coloniza- 
tion sentiments  might  be  quoted  from  members  of 
the  House  of  Lords,  and  from  such  organs  of  select 
opinion  as  the  Spectator  and  The  Quarterly  Re- 
view. In  recent  debates  on  Ireland  noble  lords  stig- 
matized the  Irish  people  as  lawless,  treacherous,  un- 
trustworthy, crafty  and  sordid. 

[  108  ] 


The  imperial  opinion  of  the  Irish  remains  con- 
stant. In  July,  19 1 6,  not  two  years  before  con- 
scription, the  Quarterly  Review  declared  in  regard 
to  the  recent  rebellion,  "  There  have  been  certain 
points  of  resemblance  between  nearly  all  Irish  re- 
bellions. Hatred  not  only  of  England,  but  of  every 
sort  of  government,  the  love  of  excitement,  class 
jealousies  and  personal  feuds,  the  romantic  ideas  of 
a  very  much  larger  number  whose  one  object  is  gain 
—  these  have  usually  been  amongst  the  causes  which 
have  brought  rebellion  about." 

As  to  "  obedience  to  law  "  and  "  the  maintenance 
of  order,"  the  intelligent  sociologist,  as  distinguished 
from  the  policeman,  is  under  no  illusions.  A  gov- 
ernment that  packs  juries  cannot  surround  political 
prosecution  with  the  odor  of  sanctity.  Lord  Mor- 
ley  recalls  the  trial  of  a  Donegal  priest  and  some 
peasants  brought  to  the  Queen's  county  in  1890. 
In  a  county  where  there  were  57,000  Catholics  out 
of  65,000  inhabitants  the  jury  contained  no  Catho- 
lics. "  Not  one  of  the  jurors  knew  Irish,"  says 
Lord  Morley,  "  and  not  many  of  the  prisoners  knew 
English."  It  is  sufficient  comment  on  the  trial  to 
say  that  when  Lord  Morley  came  to  Ireland  as  chief 
secretary  he  exercised  clemency.  "  I  wrote  a  letter 
to  Her  Majesty,"  he  adds,  after  noting  the  unfor- 
tunate coincidence  of  another  crime  with  this  re- 
lease, "  for  which  I  shall  presently  have  a  return  in 
the  shape  of  a  sharp  remonstrance  about  law  and 
order  and  the  peril  of  letting  desperadoes  out  of 
prison." 

The  "  lawlessness  "  of  the  Irish  people  has  been 
political  lawlessness.  The  government  that  packed 
juries,  in  such  cases,  was  the  real  prisoner  at  the  bar. 

[  109  ] 


THfi  PACKED  JURY  OF  PATRIOTISM 
How  seriously  are  we  to  take  the  disparaging 
estimates  of  the  Irish  people,  to  which  men  like  Sir 
Horace  Plunkett  have  given  some  countenance?  If 
the  disparagements  came  from  complete  outsiders, 
I  do  not  think  that  they  could  be  dismissed  easily. 
The  steady  condescension  of  English  writers  to  the 
United  States  —  Mrs.  TroUope,  Charles  Dickens, 
Thackeray,  Matthew  Arnold  and  the  rest  — 
may  seem  to  prove  that  inferiority  to  Englishmen 
has  for  a  long  time  been  an  unfortunate  condition 
of  human  existence,  but  these  English  who  berated 
America,  stuffy  as  they  were,  were  really  not  doing 
much  more  than  returning  the  current  American 
compliment.  No  great  love  was  lost  between  the 
two  peoples  during  "  the  hundred  years  of  peace." 
But  the  English  who  hate  Ireland  —  imperialistic 
English,  for  the  most  part  —  do  so  for  deeper  rea- 
sons than  chagrin  and  pique.  The  rebelliousness  of 
the  Irish  under  English  rule  explains  most  of  this 
belief  in  "  the  licentiousness  and  ferocity  of  a  rude 
people."  As  Franz  Oppenheimer  has  formulated 
it  for  the  general  relation  of  conquered  to  con- 
queror, "  In  consequence,  therefore,  of  a  simple  logi- 
cal inversion,  the  exploited  or  subject  group  is  re- 
garded as  an  essentially  inferior  race,  as  unruly, 
tricky,  lazy,  cowardly  and  utterly  incapable  of  self- 
rule  or  self-defence,  so  that  any  uprising  against  the 
imposed  dominion  must  necessarily  appear  as  a  re- 
volt against  God  Himself  and  against  His  moral 
ordinances." 

Men  like  Franz  Oppenheimer  do  not  resort  to  the 
hypothesis  of  "  race."     Oppenheimer  wiUingly  ad- 

[  no  ] 


mits  that  one  race  is  bound  to  be  subjected  by  an- 
other if  the  aggressors  have  "  a  more  advanced 
economic  development,  possess  a  more  tensely  cen- 
tralized power,  a  better  military  organization,  and  a 
greater  forward  thrust."  These  conditions  were 
fulfilled  by  England  when  it  conquered  Ireland. 
But,  except  in  so  far  as  England  has  crippled  and 
perverted  Ireland,  the  "  race  "  argument  is  pitifully 
unreal.  "  The  psychology  belongs  to  the  stage  of 
development,  not  to  the  race!  " 

It  is  important  to  see  that  this  Privat  Docent  of 
political  sciences  in  the  University  of  Berlin  takes 
note  of  the  corresponding  Germanic  pretensions  to 
superiority. 

"  Those  philosophers  of  history,"  he  says  in  his 
book  on  the  State,  "  who  pretend  to  explain  every 
historic  development  from  the  quality  of  '  races  ' 
give  as  the  centre  of  their  strategic  position  the  al- 
leged fact,  that  only  the  Germans,  thanks  to  their 
superior  '  political  capacity,'  have  managed  to  raise 
the  artistic  edifice  of  the  developed  feudal  state. 
Some  of  the  vigor  of  this  argument  has  departed, 
since  the  conviction  began  to  dawn  on  them  that  in 
Japan,  the  Mongol  race  had  accomplished  this  iden- 
tical result.  No  one  can  tell  what  the  Negro  races 
might  have  done,  had  not  the  irruption  of  stronger 
civilizations  barred  their  way,  and  Uganda  does  not 
differ  very  greatly  from  the  empires  of  the  Caro- 
lingians  or  of  Boleslaw  the  Red,  except  that  men  did 
not  have  in  Uganda  any  '  values  of  tradition  '  of 
medisEval  culture:  and  these  values  were  not  any 
merit  of  the  Germanic  races,  but  a  gift  wherewith 
fortune  endowed  them." 

Being  a  German  Jew,  Franz  Oppenheimer  may 
[  III  ] 


not  be  thought  quite  disinterested  in  regard  to  the 
possibilities  of  subject  peoples.  Allowing  for  an 
amusing  difference  of  idiom,  the  English  historian 
Hallam  says  practically  the  same  thing.  "  If  Ire- 
land had  not  tempted  the  cupidity  of  her  neighbors, 
there  would  have  arisen  in  the  course  of  time  some 
Egbert  or  Harold  Haarfager  to  consolidate  the  pro- 
vincial kingdoms  into  one  hereditary  monarchy; 
which,  by  the  adoption  of  better  laws,  the  increase 
of  commerce,  and  a  frequent  intercourse  with  the 
chief  courts  of  Europe,  might  have  taken  as  re- 
spectable a  station  as  that  of  Scotland  in  the  com- 
monwealth of  Christendom."  Not  the  common- 
wealth of  Britain,  it  may  be  noted,  but  the  common- 
wealth of  Christendom. 

THE    IMMORTAL    RESIDUE 

I  do  not  wish  to  insult  the  Irish,  but  suppose,  for 
a  moment,  that  a  hundred  years  ago  you  had  gone 
for  a  tour  in  England  and  found,  among  the  English 
elite,  a  thousand  new-born  babies,  what  would  have 
been  the  effect  of  a  racial  transfer?  Say  that  you 
were  an  angel;  that,  like  an  angel,  you  had  every 
gift  of  which  a  burglar  is  envious  —  the  power  of 
entering  without  being  seen,  and  abstracting  without 
being  detected.  The  thousand  English  mothers  fall 
into  a  peaceful  slumber  at  your  will,  and  while  they 
dream  of  Byron  and  the  new  poke  bonnet  you  fe- 
loniously purloin  their  babies  and  replace  them  by 
a  thousand  nice  little  Kerry  babies,  picked  up  be- 
tween Killarney  and  Valentia,  and  wafted  to  Eng- 
land by  a  powerful  but  benevolent  west  wind.  In 
order  to  save  the  gentle  Englishwomen  from  too 
extreme  a  surprise,  after  their  recent  arduous  ex- 

[    112   ] 


perience,  It  would  be  necessary  to  have  them  quite 
oblivious  of  any  difference  in  their  babies.  This, 
for  a  burglar,  would  be  difficult,  but  for  an  angel 
very  simple.  TItanIa  loved  Bottom  without  any 
suspicion  of  his  unusually  silken  ears.  These  Eng- 
lishwomen would,  for  all  time,  dream  a  midsummer 
night's  dream.  They  would  turn  with  glad  ex- 
pectancy to  the  cradles  of  1814  and  behold  there, 
with  gratified  assurance,  their  darling  little  English 
boys  and  girls.  When  the  proud  Briton  came  home 
from  the  magisterial  bench,  or  the  cock-fight,  or  the 
fox-hunt,  or  even  the  Napoleonic  wars,  he  would 
dandle  his  son  and  heir  without  the  slightest  sus- 
picion of  your  trick.  This,  however,  would  be  only 
the  preliminary.  For  the  perfection  of  the  experi- 
ment two  other  things  would  be  Imperative  —  first, 
that  the  whole  world.  Including  the  little  Kerry  fry, 
should  be  under  TItania's  optical  dispensation;  and, 
secondly,  that  these  changelings  should  be  destined 
In  due  time  —  between  1834  and  1850  —  to  be 
guided  by  your  angelic  hand,  to  meet,  to  mate  among 
each  other,  to  rear  their  offspring  under  the  same 
illusion,  and  so  to  preserve  their  racial  character 
under  the  poetic  disguise.  You  could,  then,  today, 
review  the  grand-children  and  great  grand-children 
of  these  original  Kerry  boys  and  girls. 

The  original  batch  of  boys  would,  of  course,  have 
proceeded  through  Eton  and  Winchester  and  simi- 
lar schools  to  university.  The  feminine  group 
would  have  become  accomplished  young  ladles  at 
home,  eventually  gracing  once-fashionable  Bath  and 
Brighton.  Started  on  that  plane,  where  would  we 
find  their  descendants  today?  The  answer  is  in- 
escapable.    You    would    find    the    older    ones    en- 

[  113  ] 


crusted  with  years  and  dignity.  Some  of  them 
would  be  among  that  class  whose  ideas  are  ground 
out  for  them  by  the  Spectator  between  the  upper 
millstone  of  morals  and  the  lower  millstone  of  prop- 
erty. These  would  be  found  among  the  fatter 
bishops,  the  Die-Hards  in  the  House  of  Lords,  crea- 
tures living  on  an  all-meat  diet,  creatures  living 
largely  on  Vichy,  squires  who  have  at  length  dis- 
posed of  their  gloomy  town-houses,  and  gentlemen 
whose  affinity  is  for  beagles.  Others  would  be 
found  who  had  served  in  India,  who  had  done  welt 
in  the  army,  who  had  sat  on  royal  commissions, 
who  knew  the  jungle,  who  knew  Monte  Carlo,  di- 
rectors of  rubber  companies  with  appropriately  elas- 
tic shares.  Others,  no  doubt,  would  have  been 
sifted  down.  In  spite  of  auntish  solicitude,  moth- 
erly intrigue  and  fatherly  hectoring,  they  would  per- 
force have  concluded  that  the  game  of  Success  was 
not  worth  the  candle,  and  would  have  declined  to 
force  their  brains  to  take  a  trigonometrical,  rather 
than  an  arithmetical,  view  of  the  problems  of  life. 
Drink  and  the  devil  would  account  for  some :  and 
others,  using  their  wits  after  losing  their  annuities, 
might  have  sunk  to  the  level  of  parsons  and  actors 
and  doctors  and  journalists  and  concert-singers. 
But  these  would  be  comparative  failures.  There  is 
a  possibility  that  the  introduction  of  this  Kerry  ele- 
ment Into  English  life  would  have  occasioned  a 
coruscation.  Of  this  I  am  not  sure.  Had  the  dis- 
guise protected  Negroes  instead  of  Irish,  I  believe 
they  might  have  enriched  and  deepened  English 
music,  developed  English  dancing,  and  given  to  Eng- 
land a  passional  literature  worthy  of  d'Annunzio. 
I  make  no  such  claim  for  Kerry,  but  it  is  possible 
[  114] 


that  some  of  them  would  have  effloresced  in  a  mag- 
nificent manner,  and  added  great  glory  to  their  em- 
pire. 

Since  the  women  are  so  often  the  men  of  Ireland, 
I  believe  the  Kerry  girls  would  have  thriven. 
Would  they  have  upheld  the  motherly  tradition, 
revelled  in  pietism,  petty  bountifulness  and  Marie 
Corelli?  Yes,  but,  always  in  their  disguise,  I  be- 
lieve they  would  have  taken  their  part  in  that  keen 
and  passionate  life  which  was  so  conveniently 
masked  by  Victorianism. 

ANOTHER    ENCHANTMENT 

The  thousand  English  babies,  however,  could  not 
be  allowed  to  turn  blue  in  the  cold.  Their  proper 
destiny  would  be  Kerry,  and  the  Kerry  mothers, 
ignorant  of  your  substitution,  would  love,  nurture 
and  spank  their  babies  just  as  humanly  as  the  Eng- 
lish upper-class  were  loving  and  spanking  the  Kerry 
offspring.  In  due  course,  without  an  alien  associa- 
tion, memory  or  tabu,  these  would  also  meet,  in- 
crease, and  multiply,  thus  preparing  a  beautiful 
anthropological  culture  for  the  scientist  of  19 14. 
Half  of  the  progeny  would,  by  this,  have  departed 
for  the  United  States,  where,  today,  in  ignorance  of 
their  blue  blood,  they  would  be  chewing  Wrlgley's 
Spearmint  gum.  The  other  half  of  the  transplanted 
English  descendants  would  be  on  their  "  ancestral  " 
estates  in  Kerry,  averaging  five  or  ten  acres  apiece, 
and  would  all  be  speaking  with  a  perfect  Kerry  ac- 
cent. Some  of  them  would  be  keenly  interested  in 
the  preservation  of  Gaelic,  the  tongue  for  which 
their  mouths  and  jaws  were  formed.  Most  of  them, 
men  and  women,  would  be  valiant  nationalists,  with 

[  115  ] 


a  bitter  memory  of  race  persecution  and  eviction. 
Their  memory  of  hardships  would  go  back  at  least 
700  years,  unless  they  traced  their  ancestry  to  the 
Firbolgians,  when  they  would  have  a  grievance 
against  the  Kerrymen,  descendants  of  the  cruel  Mi- 
lesian race  that  exterminated  the  poor  FIrbolgs. 
It  would  be  just  luck  if  one  of  these  transplanted 
"  Kerrymen  "  did  not,  in  the  eviction  days,  kill  his 
own  landlord  English  brother,  or  perhaps  an  orig- 
inal Kerryman,  who  had  inherited  an  Irish  estate. 

All  these  grafted  "  Kerrymen  "  would  be  good 
Catholics,  especially  devoted  to  Saint  Patrick  and 
identifying  Catholicity  with  their  "  Irish  "  blood. 
While  their  "  English  "  correlates  would  look  down 
on  the  lower  classes  and  read  the  Morning  Post, 
these  would  look  down  on  the  upper  classes  and 
read  the  Weekly  Freeman.  The  "  English  "  group 
would  roll  In  motors.  These  would  look  on  motors 
as  the  street-arab  looks  on  a  machine  gun.  They 
would  live  on  uneconomic  holdings  —  a  worn  car- 
pet of  soggy  sedge  on  an  obtruding  floor  of  granite 
—  to  which  they  would  cling  with  Gaelic  tenacity. 
They  would  prefer,  that  is  to  say,  to  stick  to  a  half- 
submerged  raft  to  drowning  In  the  open  sea.  They 
would  be  poor  but  prolific,  with  no  better  tradition 
of  husbandry  than  Kerry  commonly  affords,  and 
would  undoubtedly  be  deemed  to  lack  moral  "  fibre  " 
in  not  raising  themselves  by  their  boot-straps  — 
provided  they  were  so  plutocratic  as  to  wear  boots. 
A  few  of  them  would  have  swum  against  the  stream 
far  enough  to  reach  Maynooth,  and  would  have  be- 
come fine  parish  priests.  But,  whatever  they  did, 
short  of  becoming  "  Castle  Catholics,"  they  would 
still  be  "  natives." 

[  116  ] 


NATIONAL   BEING 

So  much,  In  my  opinion,  does  "  moral  fibre  "  de- 
pend on  a  given  heredity.  I  agree  with  Henry 
Jones  Ford  that  the  emphasis  should  fall  on  the 
organization  of  public  authority,  not  on  the  make-up 
of  a  people.  And  I  venture  to  take  his  quotation 
from  Lecky,  regarding  the  measures  which  "  in  a 
few  generations  raised  Scotland  from  one  of  the 
most  wretched  and  barbarous  Into  one  of  the  most 
civilized  and  happy  nations  in  Europe."  This  is 
Lecky's  conclusion,  "  Invectives  against  nations  and 
classes  are  usually  very  shallow.  The  original  basis 
of  national  character  differs  much  less  than  Is  sup- 
posed. The  character  of  large  bodies  of  men  de- 
pends In  the  main  upon  the  circumstances  In  which 
they  have  been  placed,  the  laws  by  which  they  have 
been  governed,  the  principles  they  have  been  taught. 
When  these  are  changed  the  character  will  alter  too, 
and  the  alteration,  though  It  Is  very  slow,  may  In 
the  end  be  very  deep." 

It  must  be  quickly  added,  that  the  "  alteration  " 
of  character  follows  laws  of  Its  own.  Woollen  un- 
derwear probably  made  all  the  difference  In  Words- 
worth's nature  poetry.  Without  woollen  under- 
wear, he  could  not  have  written.  But  many  men 
have  taken  to  woollen  underwear  without  becoming 
nature  poets.  An  Institution  can  hatch  an  egg,  but 
it  cannot  lay  one. 

The  struggle  for  Institutions  of  public  authority 
Is,  however,  a  sufficient  reason  for  national  being, 
and  it  is  probably  In  respect  of  this  struggle  that  a 
group  becomes  a  nation.  Once  the  struggle  Is  over 
the  nation  goes  on  developing  whatever  habit  and 

[  "7  ] 


exhibiting  what  physiognomy  its  original  grouping 
made  possible ;  but  the  mood  of  patriotism  which  ac- 
companies the  struggle  is  definitely  approximated  to 
the  ordering  of  its  institutions.  Patriotism  is  gen- 
erated to  promote  a  group's  struggle  for  existence. 
You  can  make  patriotism  out  of  almost  anything, 
provided  you  have  a  bit  of  land  and  goodwill.  Not 
much  land  is  needed  and,  after  a  while,  you  can  sub- 
tract the  land  without  impairing  the  goodwill.  Ra- 
cial characteristics  are  educed  either  to  promote  or 
to  discredit  a  race's  struggle  for  existence.  Thus 
they  vary  considerably,  according  as  damages  are 
being  claimed  or  admitted.  In  maintaining  racial 
characteristics  the  bellicose  patriot  is  the  prime  ex- 
ponent of  the  will  to  live.  He  is  an  idealist,  in  the 
sense  that  he  wants  qualities  without  their  defects. 
If  defects  are  alleged,  he  either  denies  them,  or  at- 
tributes them  to  some  evil  power  beyond  his  coun- 
trymen's control.  (In  home  affairs,  he  attributes 
them  to  a  failure  on  the  part  of  his  countrymen  to 
swallow  his  own  patriotic  medicine.)  In  this  man- 
ner you  behold  that  where  a  nation  is  admirable 
it  is  wholly  responsible,  but  where  it  is  odious  it  is 
powerless.  The  exact  contrary,  of  course,  is  the 
case  of  an  antagonistic  nation.  That  nation  is  fully 
responsible  for  all  its  odious  characteristics.  It 
specializes  in  odious  characteristics.  And  if,  by 
some  prodigy,  it  seems  admirable,  it  is  a  merciful 
dispensation  of  Providence.  It  is  the  bellicose  pa- 
triot who,  in  England,  used  to  discern  the  frog- 
eating  French,  or  in  France,  the  loutish,  drunken 
English;  in  Germany,  the  Russian  barbarian,  or  in 
Russia  the  sword-clanking  German.  Since  the  racial 
Struggle,  patriotically  conceived,  is  always  partisan, 

[  ii8  ] 


the  estimates  are  always  partisan.  Partisanship 
does  not  necessarily  require  a  childish  and  unreason- 
ing mind.  It  is  just  one  aspect  of  the  will  to  live, 
the  primitive  competitive  aspect,  and  competition  is 
not,  Ideally  speaking,  Incompatible  with  truth.  No 
one,  however,  pretends  that  In  ferocious  and  cut- 
throat competition  men  remain  microscopically 
truthful.  Life,  in  terms  of  time,  may  be  supposed 
to  pass  through  three  phases:  barbarism,  civlllza- 
tlon  and  exhaustion  —  the  will  to  live,  the  will  to 
live  and  let  live,  and  the  will  to  die.  In  terms  of 
extension  It  may  be  supposed  to  have  three  ex- 
ponents: the  bellicose  patriot,  the  implicit  patriot, 
and  the  effete  patriot.  According  to  neat  diagrams 
like  these.  It  Is  possible  to  be  civilized  and  yet  patri- 
otic. But  when  men  are  challenged  as  exhausted 
and  effete,  they  Immediately  become,  or  strive  to 
become,  ruthless  and  imperious.  In  doing  so,  they 
feel  wholly  justified  by  the  exigencies  of  competi- 
tion. Certain  deep  vital  instincts,  taking  In  one's 
self,  one's  family,  one's  class  and  one's  nation,  are 
felt  to  be  stronger  and  more  obligatory  than  any 
mere  judicious-minded  arrangement. 

THE    PATRIOTIC    EFFECTS 

This  Is  not  wholly  undesirable.  And  it  is  natural 
that  patriotic  partisanship  should  make  the  most  of 
racial  characteristics.  The  thing  to  secure  is 
homogeneity,  and  the  prejudices  to  tap  must  be  as 
deep-seated  and  incorrigible  as  possible.  A  certain 
racial  mouth,  we  are  told.  Is  moulded  for  a  certain 
racial  language.  A  certain  racial  stomach  Is  de- 
vised for  certain  racial  drinks.  Racial  antagonism, 
or  criticism,  accepts  these  hypotheses,  but  reacts  un- 

[  "9  ] 


favorably.  Lesions  are  discovered  In  the  "  fibre  " 
of  a  race,  as  I  have  already  indicated;  certain  spir- 
itual tendencies  —  laziness,  unpunctuality,  improvi- 
dence, fickleness,  hastiness  of  temper,  sensitiveness 
to  opposition,  vaporish  will-power  —  are  detected 
"  in  the  breed."  According  as  one  is  solicitous  or 
antagonistic,  these  traits  are  marked  good  or  evil, 
to  be  attacked  or  preserved.  Since  "  blood  will 
tell,"  and  the  present  generation  earmark  the  com- 
ing generation,  men  are  urged  to  safeguard  their 
heritage  or  strengthen  their  fibre  —  In  the  heroic 
hope  that  If  sufficient  thought  Is  taken  the  race  will 
gloriously  emerge  or  peaceably  subside. 

In  virtue  of  Ireland's  llfe-and-death  political 
struggle.  In  which  the  terms  of  national  entity  and 
national  existence  have  been  In  constant  dispute,  It 
is  natural  that  her  racial  characteristics  should  have 
been  conceived  In  a  more  than  ordinarily  partisan 
spirit.  Those  characteristics  have,  of  course,  been 
determined — ^  that  Is,  afl^rmed  —  In  view  of  her 
subordinate  relation  to  England,  The  native  esti- 
mate has  been  shaped  under  the  pains  and  frustra- 
tions of  national  struggle.  The  English  estimate 
has  been  decided  by  the  difficult  exigencies  of  Im- 
perial policy.  It  may  be  unwelcome  to  urge  too 
readily  that  some  of  the  dearest  conceptions  as  to 
the  Irish  are  political  fiction,  that  the  Irish  race  as 
deprecated  In  the  Kildare  Street  Club  or  as  Idealized 
by  the  second  generation  of  Irish  in  Chicago  has 
never  existed.  Fictions  they  are,  yet,  libellous  or 
idyllic,  they  are  merely  the  disguises  of  a  significant 
and  irresistible  national  struggle. 

I  do  not  myself  hold  with  bellicose  partisanship. 
[   I20  ] 


Nationalism  is  a  divine  but  maddening  liquor,  and  it 
ends  by  driving  most  reasonable  men  to  prohibition. 
And  the  Furor  Hibernicus  is  not  soda-water.  The 
danger  of  nationalism  to  the  Irish  people  is,  in  ad- 
dition, its  power  to  distract  Irish  will  from  the 
realities  that  press  upon  it  for  mastery.  It  may  be 
admitted  today  that  Ireland  excited  Norman  rapac- 
ity, that  her  conquest  was  a  classic  example  of  wan- 
ton aggression,  outrage  by  force.  But  the  wanton- 
ness of  England's  sin  against  Ireland  was  not  really 
its  violation  of  Irish  independence.  It  was  its  fail- 
ure to  satisfy  what  that  independence  protected,  the 
consensus  of  native  Irish  will.  A  will  In  Irishmen 
which  England  has  not  satisfied  keeps  alive  the  de- 
mand for  reparation.  It  is  this,  not  the  onslaught, 
which  generates  rage  and  lament,  which  keeps  re- 
prisal and  Independence  before  Irish  eyes. 

He  who  sees  nations  biologically  may  demur. 
Life  to  such  a  man  is  still  the  jungle.  Each  nation 
is  a  being,  in  which  the  vulnerable  must  be  prepared 
to  resist  or  to  make  disadvantageous  peace.  Na- 
tions, to  his  mind,  know  no  appeal  against  trial  by 
battle.  The  material  of  which  they  are  composed 
is  not  the  supposititious  human  nature  of  the  cate- 
chism but  the  stuff  of  murder  and  jealousy,  of  leap- 
ing appetites  and  sharpened  teeth.  Slaughterous 
conflict  Is  the  process  of  selection.  The  nation  is  a 
tragl-comic  animal  driven  by  needs  which  at  best  it 
can  only  sophisticate.  Among  the  plaintive  Irish 
themselves  the  realist  may  find  no  exception  to  this 
law.  The  rulers  of  the  small  principalities  did  not 
die  in  their  beds.  They  mounted  or  fell  by  compe- 
tition.    The  power  to  compete  was  the  measure  of 

[    121    ] 


) 

their  competence.  And  if  the  Irish  suffered  yester- 
day from  wanton  aggression,  the  Belgians  suffer  to- 
day, and  England  and  the  English  may  discover  its 
cold  logic  tomorrow. 

Who  will  deny  that  this  is  part  of  the  truth? 
Man  is  animal  and  battle  is  the  animal's  process  of 
adjustment.  But  that  process  is  not  completed  by 
physical  victory.  By  memory  and  imagination  man 
is  something  more  than  predatory.  Memory  and 
imagination  extended  in  him  preserve  him  in  his 
group  estate,  and  when  he  falls  he  retains  within 
him,  unlike  other  animals,  an  anxious  and  insistent 
title  to  the  establishment  of  his  group.  If  his  group 
fares  ill,  his  memory  and  imagination  remain  to  be 
vanquished,  and  in  the  degree  that  exploitation  fol- 
lows on  aggression,  in  that  degree  is  confirmed  the 
title  of  his  lost  dominion. 

THE    DANGER    OF    PATRIOTISM 

It  is  not  the  dislocation  of  national  or  interna- 
tional adjustments  which  is  the  real  sin  against  so- 
ciety. Whether  peaceful  or  violent,  painless  or 
painful,  dislocation  is  a  necessary  condition  of 
change.  Goodwill  between  groups  and  classes  is 
the  balance-wheel  of  society,  but  in  reaching  for  new 
understandings  goodwill  has  often  to  be  forfeited. 
The  justification  of  the  new  understanding,  however, 
depends  on  its  power  to  restore  goodwill.  And  it 
is  in  this  that  mere  Might  fails. 

To  start  conflict  between  human  groups  only  one 
thing  is  needed  —  the  denial  of  a  common  will. 
The  strong  nominates  himself  the  interpreter  of  the 
weak.  He  sees  his  victim  as  akin  to  beast  or  child 
without  a  right  to  a  will  of  his  own.     If  the  victim 

[    122   ] 


oppose  him,  it  provides  just  cause  for  coercion.  Be- 
tween the  two  there  is  no  equality.  The  victim  must 
submit  or  be  destroyed. 

If  a  group  is  exterminated  under  the  regime  of 
these  presumptions  there  is  no  political  problem,  but 
if  the  group  persists  as  a  group  the  conqueror  is  in 
bad  case.  His  intrusion  cruelly  denied  the  exist- 
ence of  a  common  will  between  himself  and  his  sub- 
ject. His  presence  vividly  maintains  that  denial. 
In  the  eyes  of  his  victim  he  is  a  demon,  implacable, 
malignant.  The  concept  of  will  that  is  necessary 
to  peace  is  impossible.  His  expulsion  becomes  a 
fixed  idea  in  his  victim's  mind.  Thus  conflict  gen- 
erates conflict,  the  beast  in  one  group  consecrates  the 
beast  in  another.  It  is  instinct  to  keep  up  conflict  — 
but  the  point  comes  when  the  intolerance  created  by 
aggression  rebounds  on  its  victim.  The  point  comes 
where  the  one  whose  adjustments  were  violated  is 
the  one  who  fails  to  readjust.  That  point  is  reached 
when,  in  spite  of  his  character  as  demon,  the  ag- 
gressor offers  restoration  and  genuinely  seeks  terms 
of  peace.  If  the  defeated  refuse  to  make  these 
terms,  terms  that  at  last  recognize  their  equal  will, 
they  too  commit  themselves  eternally  to  bodily  con- 
flict. 

To  continue  forever  to  deny  the  possibility  of 
goodwill  between  peoples  in  conflict  is  to  declare  that 
battle  is  the  only  process  by  which  men  can  find  ad- 
justment. It  is  to  deny  that  reason  can  ever  place 
oppressor  and  oppressed  on  a  common  plane.  It 
Is  to  suppose  that  men  learn  no  lesson  from  experi- 
ence. It  is  to  suppose  that  life  Is  a  vicious  circle  In 
which  outrage  must  always  be  repaid  in  kind. 

Liberty  and  goodwill  can  be  taken  away  on  the 
[  123  ] 


terms  of  the  body.  They  can  be  restored  on  terms 
of  the  soul.  The  side  that  declines  those  terms  sim- 
ply returns  the  battle  to  the  region  of  biology.  To 
do  so  is  to  enslave  the  present  to  the  past,  to  make 
animal  combat  the  decisive  factor  in  human  affairs, 
to  proclaim  a  lost  form  of  independence  the  only 
form  desirable,  to  ask  for  a  world  in  which  evolu- 
tion must  defer  to  every  status  quo. 

Outrage  has  served  one  great  purpose  for  the 
Irish.  It  has  made  them  self-conscious.  It  has 
burned  into  their  memory  and  imagination  the  title 
to  their  desires.  But  if  they  direct  those  desires 
against  an  historic  enemy  rather  than  toward  a  so- 
cial goal  they  will  stand  in  the  very  light  of  that 
reconcilement  to  which  their  heroic  resistance  has 
begun  to  educate  their  foe. 

THE    NEED   FOR   NATIONALISM 

Yet  reconcilement  can  never  take  place  except  on 
grounds  that  permit  the  whole  people  to  function. 
This  the  English  know  when  they  think  of  German 
dominance.  This  the  Irish  know  when  they  think 
of  English  dominance.  The  principle  is  equal  and 
Irresistible.  And  the  history  of  mismanagement  is 
too  fresh  for  Irishmen  not  to  feel  contentious  as  to 
every  detail  of  government.  It  Is  for  this  reason 
that  the  most  detached  of  Irishmen  must  admit  and 
proclaim  his  nationalism. 

Because  many  deep  sentiments,  especially  the 
tribal  ones  such  as  patriotism,  lead  to  crass  irrational 
partisanship,  many  persons  give  them  up  altogether 
In  the  first  flush  of  being  socialized.  It  Is  a  little 
like  aiming  to  avoid  chilblains  by  the  expedient  of 
cutting  off  one's  toes.     There  is  nothing  rational 

[  124] 


about  one's  earliest  patriotism.  If  one  is  born  in 
Green  Street  one  is  a  Catholic  and  nationalist.  One 
adores  Parnell,  detests  Joe  Chamberlain,  Queen 
Victoria,  the  English  accent,  Tommy  Atkins.  One 
is  even  suspicious  of  afternoon  tea.  If  one  is  born 
in  Orange  Street,  on  the  contrary,  one  is  a  Protes- 
tant and  unionist.  The  Irish  are  the  dirty  Irish  and 
they  are  priest-ridden.  One  despises  Michael 
Davitt  and  admires  the  subaltern's  moustache. 
One  is  really  interested  in  Princess  Beatrice  and  is 
excited  when  she  is  about  to  have  a  baby.  This 
kind  of  patriotism  is  universal  and  preposterous. 
It  is  the  bane  of  humanity.  But  to  give  up  one's 
group-relation  because  of  these  stupidities  is  only 
possible  if  one  is  content  to  take  no  group  respon- 
sibility and  to  decline  to  have  any  part  in  community 
political  life.  To  be  emancipated  in  some  degree 
from  the  crasser  group-opinion  is  necessary  to  any 
one  who  wants  to  think  freely.  A  man's  freedom 
to  speculate,  in  fact,  seems  to  depend  on  his  freedom 
from  immediate  responsibility  for  his  native  group. 
But  back  of  all  the  nonsense  of  group-opinions  there 
is  the  stern  fact  of  group-will  and  group-necessity. 
And  unless  one  is  ready  to  separate  all  one's  activi- 
ties from  one's  inheritance  it  is  necessary  at  times 
to  take  a  part  in  half-rationalized  politics,  clumsy 
though  the  acts  of  group  thought  and  will. 

To  be  patriotic  need  not  mean  that  one  cling  to 
the  ignorant  partisanship  of  one's  childhood.  It 
need  not  even  mean  that  one  agrees  with  or  sanc- 
tions the  behaviour  of  one's  particular  ilk.  But  it 
does  mean  that  the  group-relation  is  recognized  as  a 
vital  relation  and  that  issues  which  are  tried  out 
tribally  may  command  a  loyalty  which  is  not  founded 

[  125  ] 


on  ratiocination.  Independent  intellectual  experi- 
ence is  the  salt  of  human  conduct.  But  there  is 
more  in  life  than  independent  intellectual  experience 
and  in  a  crisis  one  fails  to  be  cosmopolite.  A  man 
discovers  himself  to  be  on  the  side  of  his  group. 

To  take  thought  for  the  group  is  not  inconsistent 
with  accepting  it.  It  is  only  by  that  process  of 
ratiocination  from  inside  the  patriotic  impulse,  in- 
deed, that  the  whole  necessary  patriotic  process  can 
be  redeemed. 

ITS  INESCAPABLE  IMPORTANCE 
The  group  in  action  is  not  seeking  agreement  of 
thought.  It  is  seeking  agreement  of  will.  To  un- 
derstand what  a  practical  man  is  saying,  on  this  ac- 
count, it  is  not  sufficient  to  heed  his  v/ords.  His 
words  are  uttered  with  a  partisan  purpose.  It  is 
essential  to  identify  his  party  and  judge  its  designs. 
But  there  is  more  in  politics  than  the  mere  clash  of 
wills,  the  rivalry  of  party  programmes  and  candi- 
dates and  meetings  and  elections,  the  rivalry  of  bat- 
talions and  guns  and  men.  The  game  itself,  which- 
ever side  one  belongs  to,  is  a  concern  about  which 
one  can  speak  at  large  without  being  partisan.  And 
in  speaking  of  it  one  may  fairly  aspire  to  be  honest, 
though  inevitably  in  sympathy  with  a  definite  group. 
It  is  my  own  belief  that  the  superior  brute 
strength  of  Britain,  with  privileges  and  vested  inter- 
ests at  stake,  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  trouble  in  Ire- 
land. Britain  has  held  the  scales  unevenly  and  em- 
ployed its  force  callously  to  maintain  the  unequal 
scales.  The  insurrection  of  191 6,  for  example,  was 
not  inevitable.  It  came  largely  from  Irish  impa- 
tience and  unreasonableness.     But  when  men  suffer 

[  126  ] 


the  baffling  injustice  that  is  the  common  fact  in  Ire- 
land their  madness  cannot  be  marvelled  at.  Men 
too  long  baulked  in  their  legitimate  dispositions 
have  been  guilty  of  greater  madness.  To  see  how 
Irish  dispositions  are  being  baulked  and  to  suggest 
how  those  greater  madnesses  can  be  avoided  are  the 
problems  Irish  statesmanship  must  confront. 

This  attitude  is  not  discernible  in  the  self-inter- 
ested Englishmen  I  have  quoted,  from  Milton  on. 
And  yet  all  except  the  most  unidealistic  adminis- 
trators know  better  today  than  to  obsess  themselves 
with  racial  or  patriotic  prejudice.  "  I  am  entirely 
convinced,"  said  a  German  ethnologist  some  years 
ago,  "  that  our  late  war  in  South  West  Africa  might 
easily  have  been  avoided,  and  that  it  was  simply  a 
result  of  the  disparagement  which  ruled  in  the  lead- 
ing circles  regarding  the  teachings  of  ethnology. 
Taught  by  bitter  experience,  we  shall  now  be  com- 
pelled to  study  the  native  in  our  colonies,  simply 
because  he  is  the  most  important  product  of  the  soil, 
which  never  can  be  supplanted  by  any  substitute,  and 
must  therefore  be  regarded  as  absolutely  indis- 
pensable." 

This  is  a  nasty  philosophy,  but  it  is  better  than 
the  blind  brutality  of  Milton's.  It  would  have  been 
well  for  Milton  if  he  had  known  and  appreciated 
the  other  mournful  German  administrator  who  said, 
"  Far  too  little  regard  was  paid  to  native  customs 
and  traditions  of  life.  Instead  of  studying  native 
law  and  custom  systematically,  and  regulating  ad- 
ministration in  each  colony  according  to  its  peculiar 
traditions  and  circumstances,  all  colonies  alike  were 
governed  on  a  sort  of  lex  Germanica,  consisting  of 
Prussian  legal  maxims  pedantically  interpreted  in  a 

[  127  ] 


narrow  bureaucratic  spirit  by  jurists  with  little  ex- 
perience of  law,  with  less  of  human  nature,  and  with 
none  at  all  of  native  usages." 

The  evils  of  this  German  Machiavellism  are  not 
on  the  surface,  but  between  competent  and  incompe- 
tent Machiavellism  the  better  is  the  competent. 
The  alternative  to  such  manifestations  of  self-seek- 
ing is  an  abandonment  of  imperialism  altogether. 
The  spiritual  aspects  of  furious  contempt  and  cold 
managerial  efficiency  are  both  repellent.  If  greedy 
colonization  has  to  be  undertaken  in  one  or  other 
of  these  moods,  then,  as  President  Wilson  has  told 
the  world  repeatedly,  it  is  imperative  that  human 
beings  go  uncolonized. 


[  128  J 


CATHOLIC  AND  PROTESTANT 

THE    CONTRAST   WITH    SCOTLAND 

oEEING  that  England  is  Protestant  and  Ireland 
Catholic,  it  is  quite  easy  to  identify  Catholic  inter- 
ests with  Irish  interests  and  Protestant  interests  with 
English  interests.  This  is  one  of  the  simplest  ways 
to  misunderstand  Ireland.  Influential  above  every- 
thing else  in  the  destiny  of  Ireland,  the  power  of 
Rome  has  been  not  infrequently  exercised  in  con- 
junction with  the  power  of  England,  contrary  to  the 
desires  and  aspirations  of  radical  Irishmen.  The 
popular  allegiance  to  Catholicism  has  undoubtedly 
helped  to  keep  Ireland  national.  The  policy  of 
Catholicism  has  undoubtedly  helped  to  keep  it  na- 
tional unsuccessfully.  This  intricate  contest  be- 
tween the  three  influences  —  the  papal,  the  English, 
the  national, —  deserves  much  more  consideration 
than  it  usually  receives.  It  is  too  simple  to  speak 
of  Ireland  as  "  priest-ridden."  It  is  too  simple 
(though  so  convenient  that  we  all  do  it)  to  speak 
of  Catholic  Ireland  as  synonymous  with  nationalist 
Ireland.  England  has  made  much  of  Ireland's 
Catholicism  in  intimating  the  difl'iculty  of  ruling  Ire- 
land. But  often  "  Catholicism  "  has  been  a  syno- 
nym for  vassalage.  The  common  people  in  Ire- 
land have  never  ceased  to  be  the  sport  of  economic 
forces  masquerading  as  rehgious,  and  religious 
[  129  ] 


forces  intruding  into  the  political.  The  complexity 
of  this  tournament  demands  an  excursion  into  his- 
tory —  where  one  does  so  often  detect  the  thumb 
prints  of  visitants  who  leave  no  trace  of  themselves 
elsewhere  outside  their  contumelious  deeds. 

People  often  wonder,  for  example,  why  the 
Scotch-English  conflict  and  the  Irish-English  con- 
flict should  have  worked  out  to  such  different  con- 
clusions. There  was  nothing  different  in  the  an- 
tagonisms. In  both  cases  there  was  a  conflict  of 
will.  In  both  cases  there  was  a  recourse  to  force. 
But  in  Scotland's  case  the  people  were  already 
trustified,  so  to  speak,  on  the  national  issue,  while 
the  Irish  had  not,  as  yet,  assumed  mastery  of  their 
fate.     The  clue  is  religious. 

It  was  Scotland's  fortune  to  have  had  a  greedy 
and  lecherous  priesthood.  Delegates  of  the  divine 
Emperor,  they  pursued  not  only  his  interest  but 
their  own.  They  were,  in  the  crudest  sense,  men 
of  this  world.  For  a  long  time  the  Scotch  sub- 
mitted to  the  church  in  perfect  faith,  but  gradually 
the  church  took  on  the  character  of  a  foreign  body, 
and  the  effort  to  expel  that  foreign  body  precipi- 
tated national  consciousness.  The  people  made  a 
choice  between  obedience  to  their  hierarchy  and 
obedience  to  what  they  considered  their  own  ma- 
terial and  spiritual  good.  The  choice  became  prac- 
tically unanimous.  It  gave  the  people  unity  of  in- 
terest, and  led  them  to  organize  their  will  in  gain- 
ing control  of  the  church.  In  this  coordination 
they  attained  their  political  majority. 

When  the  English  made  onslaught  on  the  Scotch 
they  discovered  a  people  who  had  found  themselves. 
They  could  not  be  divided  to  be  conquered.     The 

[  130  ] 


result  was  a  self-respecting  compromise.  It  was  a 
long  while  before  the  Scotch  really  trusted  the  Eng- 
lish. Being  considerably  weaker,  they  were  con- 
siderably suspicious.  But  England  had  the  tact  to 
conciliate  Scotland.  It  had  been  beaten  often 
enough  by  Scotland  to  respect  its  power,  and 
although,  as  Charles  Lamb  so  amusingly  illustrates, 
there  was  a  great  deal  of  racial  prejudice  and  mutual 
contempt,  the  union  was  respected  on  both  sides, 
and  the  result  was  a  genuine  United  Kingdom. 

The  Irish  contingency  came  earlier.  It  was  Ire- 
land's fortune  to  possess  a  priesthood  which  also 
was  greedy  if  not  lecherous.  The  divine  Emperor 
ruled  Ireland  through  delegates  of  great  political 
power.  Religion  coordinated  the  Irish,  as  it  co- 
ordinated the  Scotch,  but  it  coordinated  them  on 
an  ultramontane  basis.  The  centre  of  their  being 
was  outside  Ireland  —  politically,  in  Rome.  When, 
therefore,  the  clergy  and  nobles  of  Ireland  held 
their  third  national  council  and  sought  to  repress 
simony  and  usury,  to  enforce  the  payment  of  tithes, 
and  to  "  put  down  robbery  and  rape  and  bad  morals 
and  evils  of  every  kind,"  the  Irish  were  unable,  like 
the  Scotch,  to  discount  the  charges.  They  accepted 
the  Imperial  indictment,  which  gave  Henry  II  his 
excuse  to  come  to  Ireland  "  to  reform  and  build 
up  the  Catholic  Faith,  which  had  fallen  down  in 
Ireland." 

You  have,  then,  the  contrast  between  a  people 
undertaking  its  reformation  from  within,  involving 
the  rejection  of  external  authority;  and  a  people 
whose  reformation  was  undertaken  from  without, 
involving  the  affirmation  of  external  authority. 

The  result,  at  first,  was  politically  unimportant. 
[  131  ] 


Eventually  the  presence  of  the  English  in  Ireland 
precipitated  national  consciousness,  and  the  Irish, 
like  the  Scotch,  "  found  themselves  "  in  the  effort 
to  expel  a  foreign  body.  It  is  one  thing,  however, 
for  a  people  to  coordinate  in  aggression,  another 
thing  to  coordinate  in  defence.  It  is  one  thing  to 
marry  because  you  want  to,  another  thing  to  marry 
because  you  have  to.  Ireland's  misfortune  was  that 
an  international  issue,  not  a  national  issue,  brought 
her  into  political  being.  Her  nationalism  was  born 
out  of  wedlock  —  politically  an  illegitimate  child. 

IRELAND   A    NATION 

It  is,  I  believe,  asserted  that  Ireland  had  already 
become  "  one  and  indivisible  "  before  the  Norman 
invasion.  This  is  scarcely  true.  The  Irish  nobles 
In  the  pre-Norman  period  were  a  race  of  petty  su- 
permen. Like  all  simple  people  they  were  re- 
ligious, but  they  were  still,  in  the  constitutional  sense, 
barbarians.  They  had  not  achieved  the  will  to  live 
and  let  live.  They  believed,  that  is  to  say,  in  ad- 
justing social  conflict  by  force.  Much  of  that  con- 
flict was  created  by  incursive  Northmen  but  most 
of  it  was  due  to  their  own  decentralization.  There 
is  not  an  Irish  county  which  has  not  been  drenched 
in  the  blood  of  one  set  of  Irishmen  slain  by  another 
set  of  Irishmen.  In  all  that  halcyon  period  when 
Ireland  was  supposed  to  be  an  island  of  saints  and 
doctors  the  Irish  were  engaged  in  the  perfectly  nor- 
mal occupation  of  that  evolutionary  stage  —  a  life 
of  perhaps  glorious  but  also  exceedingly  ferocious 
and  bloodthirsty  competition.  Religion  existed. 
IV  en  believed  In  God  as  children  believe  in  God. 
But  while  He  was  Ireland's  High-King,  He  stood 
[  132  ] 


for  faith,  not  for  civil  morality.  And,  after  a  short 
period  of  religious  zeal,  the  clergy  joined  with  a  will 
in  the  martial  exploitations.  Those  who  have  read 
Geoffrey  Keating's  seventeenth  century  history, 
whether  in  Gaelic  or  English,  can  have  no  illusions 
as  to  the  war-loving  hfe  of  clergy  and  laity  alike. 
On  this  point,  all  views  are  one.  "  The  clan  sys- 
tem, in  fact,  applied  down  to  the  eighth  or  ninth 
century  almost  as  much  to  the  clergy  as  to  the  laity, 
and  with  the  abandonment  of  Tara,  and  the  weak- 
ening of  the  High-Kingship,  the  only  power  which 
bid  fair  to  override  feud  and  faction  was  got  rid  of, 
and  every  man  drank  for  himself  the  intoxicating 
draught  of  irresponsibility,  and  each  princeling  be- 
came a  Caesar  in  his  own  community."  So  says  Dr. 
Douglas  Hyde.  The  clergy,  like  the  laity,  had  the 
will  to  live,  and  sought  power  by  barbaric  means. 

One  aspect  of  the  state  is  force.  In  Ireland  that 
force  was  split  up  into  warring  units,  each  used  for 
personal  aggrandizement  with  unblushing  constancy. 
The  clan  system  was  essentially  combative,  favored 
by  a  clergy  that  itself  divided  to  conquer.  It  is 
fondly  alleged  that  there  was  something  democratic 
in  the  method  by  which  chieftains  were  selected  — 
on  the  basis  of  personal  prowess  rather  than 
hereditary  right.  No  method  was  more  designed  to 
promote  combat.  It  was  the  result  of  a  life  without 
centralization  and  without  money  economy,  an  in- 
tensely emulative  life.  A  dynasty  was  impossible 
in  a  country  where,  in  a  sense  quite  contrary  to  Ber- 
nard Shaw's,  "  the  golden  rule  was  that  there  was 
no  golden  rule." 

One  or  two  of  the  Irish  kings  had  glimmerings 
of  a  national  state.     They  used  their  overwhelming 

[  133  ] 


force  to  compel  coordination.  They  assumed  the 
imperial  prerogative,  and  were  cruel  to  be  kind. 
But  so  invincible  was  the  separatism  that  preceded  a 
money  economy,  so  unmitigated  the  individualism 
of  the  local  clans,  so  ungoverned  their  animosities, 
and  so  subordinate  the  civic  to  the  religious  alle- 
giance, that  the  princelings  resisted  all  coordina- 
tion. No  Bismarck  was  at  hand  in  early  Ireland,  to 
cure  force  by  more  force,  and  the  clans  remained 
private-minded  so  long  as  their  system  remained. 

In  this  failure  to  coordinate  there  is  nothing,  of 
course,  peculiarly  Gaelic.  And  had  Ireland  been 
protected  from  colonization  by  a  Monroe  doctrine, 
as  the  unruly  South  American  republics  have  been 
protected,  it  would  in  time  have  developed  its 
autonomy.  As  it  was,  it  possessed  considerable 
amenity  of  life.  Its  architecture  was  attaining  dig- 
nity. Its  art  was  developing.  Its  music  was  ac- 
complished. Its  poetry  and  literature,  needing  even 
less  concentrated  wealth  for  their  fostering,  were 
highly  advanced.  A  national  personality  was 
emerging  out  of  the  clan  system,  as  the  clan  person- 
ality had  emerged  out  of  nomad  tribalism,  and  as 
the  tribal  personality  had  emerged  out  of  what  his- 
torians delight  to  assert  was  a  cannibalistic  individu- 
alism. But  the  intervention  of  the  Norman,  under 
the  aegis  of  Rome,  searched  out  the  weakness  of 
the  Gael.  Politically  speaking,  it  was  lamentable 
that  the  Norman  had  not  come  earlier,  or  later. 
Had  he  come  earlier,  at  the  incipiency  of  Irish  self- 
consciousness,  he  might  have  successfully  aborted 
it.  Had  he  come  later,  he  would  have  been  obliged 
to  make  terms  with  it.  As  it  was,  he  measured  the 
Irish  by  himself,  concluded  them  inferior  and  per- 

[  134  ] 


verse,  and  started  early  on  the  royal  road  of  coercion. 

THE   PREDATORY   ENGLISH 

When  we  look  back  on  England's  treatment  of 
subjected  Ireland,  we  are  commonly  tempted  to  re- 
gard the  Irish  as  lambs  and  the  English  as  wolves. 
This  view  is  favored  in  Ireland.  It  can  only  be 
maintained,  however,  by  having  one  criterion  for 
England  and  another  for  Ireland.  There  was 
nothing  lamblike  about  early  Irish  history,  and  I 
submit  that  the  early  Irish  chieftains  were  genuinely 
predatory.  Had  they  extruded  the  invaders,  and 
gone  on  in  the  natural  development  of  maritime 
power  it  is  extremely  likely  that,  in  due  course,  they 
would  have  returned  the  Norman-English  compli- 
ment. Raids  and  forays  were  in  their  character. 
It  therefore  seems  sentimental,  to  say  the  least,  to 
hinge  a  case  against  England  on  Ireland's  saintly  and 
inoffensive  character.  It  is  charming  to  believe  that 
butter  would  not  melt  in  the  ancient  Irish  mouth,  but 
no  one  who  has  ever  been  a  member  of  a  contem- 
porary Irish  organization  can  accept  this  pretty  fic- 
tion. Misfortune  may  have  increased  the  irasci- 
bility of  Irish  genius,  but  there  is  evidence  that  Ire- 
land always  had  its  Tim  Healys  and  William 
O'Briens,  either  as  irresponsible  princelings,  Ca?sars 
in  their  own  community,  or  else  satiric  bards  who 
lampooned  for  a  living.  It  was  not  Irish  inoffens- 
iveness  that  made  its  subjection  unfair.  A  people 
so  incisively  individual  could  never  have  been  in- 
offensive. 

And,  if  the  Irish  leaders  were  never  particularly 
lamblike,  neither  were  the  English  particularly 
lupine.     To  impute  any  special  viciousness  to  the 

[   135  ] 


English  character,  to  suppose  them  base  and  inhu- 
man is  patently  absurd.  The  experiment  seduced 
them,  as  it  has  seduced  every  other  empire  that 
countenanced  enslaving  colonization. 

It  is  easy,  now,  to  say  that  the  English  came  un- 
der a  religious  cloak  on  a  secular  expedition,  and 
so  abused  the  Irish  confidence.  But,  while  this  be- 
trayal occurred,  it  does  not  exculpate  the  Irish.  It 
is  simple  and  beautiful  to  put  one's  fate  in  the 
hands  of  Providence,  to  regard  one's  armed  visitors 
as  ambassadors  of  the  divine.  But  this  world,  as 
the  church  well  knows,  is  a  theatre  of  war,  not  a 
young  ladies'  seminary.  The  English  violated  Irish 
Independence.  Their  initial  insincerity  is  still  a  liv- 
ing and  potent  tradition.  But  It  never  would  have 
occurred  but  for  Ireland's  dependence  on  Rome  — 
a  political  naivete,  a  political  ineptitude. 

Up  to  a  certain  point,  then,  Ireland's  fortune  was 
the  fortune  of  war.  In  Ireland's  history  it  is  known 
that  self-seeking  was  the  general  rule,  and  that  the 
strong  men  sought  to  overcome,  and  did  overcome, 
their  weaker  brethren,  and  treated  them  with  no 
particular  sweetness  or  reasonableness.  Personal 
aggrandizement  was  considered  just  as  fair  then,  in 
the  military  sphere,  as  It  Is  now.  In  the  economic 
sphere,  and  the  man  who  could  not  fight  was  re- 
garded as  a  dastard,  a  fool  or  a  saint.  The  Irish 
were  not  saints.  Neither  were  they  dastards.  But 
they  allowed  an  enemy  to  entrench  himself  in  their 
midst,  to  whom  they  had  to  give  In,  or  from  whom 
they  had  to  stand  out  —  a  problem  as  bitter  as 
death,  and  Incurred  In  Immaturity. 

In  electing  to  stand  out,  the  Irish  proved  their 
vitality  and  incivility.     It  was  a  serious  course  to 

[  136  ] 


pursue,  fraught  with  permanent  consequences  In  body 
and  spirit.  A  great  statesmanship  could  have  re- 
deemed It,  time  after  time,  an  abihty  in  the  English 
to  sacrifice  their  own  ambitions  and  to  bend  all  their 
talents  to  reconstruction.  But  through  centuries  of 
rule  the  English  lacked  the  disinterestedness  of  states- 
manship. Resenting  Ireland's  incivility,  they  started 
on  the  doomed  policy  of  coercion,  leaving  exploita- 
tion unremitted.  Before  long,  a  grievance  was  es- 
tablished of  the  bitterest  kind,  which  now  makes  old 
England,  like  a  reformed  seducer  in  one  of  Hardy's 
novels,  wish  that  the  victim  and  responsibility  for  the 
victim  were  buried  at  the  bottom  of  the  sea.  The 
measure  of  the  wrong  done  to  Ireland  Is  the  hatred 
of  Ireland  generated  in  the  heart  of  the  English 
and  Anglo-Irish  governing  class. 

THE   WAR    OF    CHICANE 

So  far  I  have  had  little  need  to  mention  religion. 
The  worst  difficulty  of  ruling  Ireland  often  ap- 
pears to  be  religious,  but  the  religious  virus  did  not 
occasion  difficulty  from  the  beginning  because  as  the 
Protestant  Edmund  Burke  Irrefutably  explained, 
"  the  spirit  of  the  popery  laws,  and  some  even  of 
their  actual  provisions,  as  applied  between  Englishry 
and  Irlshry,  had  existed  in  that  harassed  country 
before  the  words  Protestant  and  papist  were  heard 
of  in  the  world."  Burke  recognized  the  evils  of  the 
colonization  of  Ireland,  and  the  bending  of  *'  law  " 
to  that  end. 

*'  All  the  penal  laws  of  that  unparalleled  code  of 
oppression,"  Burke  continues,  "  which  were  made 
after  the  last  event,  were  manifestly  the  effects  of 
national   hatred   and   scorn    towards    a   conquered 

[  137] 


people;  whom  the  victors  delighted  to  trample  upon, 
and  were  not  at  all  afraid  to  provoke.  They  were 
not  the  effect  of  their  fears  but  of  their  security. 
They  who  carried  on  this  system  looked  to  the  irre- 
sistible force  of  Great  Britain  for  their  support  in 
their  acts  of  power.  They  were  quite  certain  that 
no  complaints  of  the  natives  would  be  heard  on  this 
side  of  the  water  with  any  other  sentiments  than 
those  of  contempt  and  indignation.  Their  cries 
served  only  to  augment  their  torture.  Machines 
which  could  answer  their  purposes  so  well  must  be 
of  an  excellent  contrivance.  Indeed,  in  England, 
the  double  name  of  the  complainant,  Irish  and 
papists  (it  would  be  hard  to  say  which  singly  was 
the  most  odious)  shut  up  the  hearts  of  everyone 
against  them.  Whilst  that  temper  prevailed,  and 
it  prevailed  in  all  its  force  to  a  time  within  our 
memory,  every  measure  was  pleasing  and  popular, 
just  in  proportion  as  it  tended  to  harass  and  ruin 
a  set  of  people  who  were  looked  upon  as  enemies 
to  God  and  man;  and,  indeed,  as  a  race  of  bigoted 
savages  who  were  a  disgrace  to  human  nature  itself." 
With  the  advent  of  William  of  Orange,  the  op- 
pressed became  fully  identified  with  Catholicism,  and 
thereafter  the  animus  of  Irish  life  was  virulently 
sectarian.  Those  who  explain  everything  by  innate 
characteristics  may  see  something  more  than  acci- 
dent in  the  Catholicism  of  the  common  Irish;  the 
whole  history  of  Ireland  will  even  seem  hideously 
appropriate  taken  in  the  light  of  "  the  ungodly  ethics 
of  the  papacy,  the  Inquisition,  the  Casuists."  But 
it  is  pardonable  to  return  to  Edmund  Burke  before 
admitting  this  easy  reflex  from  continental  history. 
Burke  proclaimed  in  one  phrase  what  the  microscope 

[  138  ] 


of  Lecky's  long  history  has  corroborated,  that  "  it 
is  injustice,  and  not  a  mistaken  conscience,  that  has 
been  the  principle  of  persecution."  "  From  what 
I  have  observed,"  Burke  ampHfied,  "  it  is  pride, 
arrogance,  and  a  spirit  of  domination,  and  not  a 
bigoted  spirit  of  religion,  that  has  caused  and  kept 
up  those  oppressive  statutes." 

In  his  famous  letter  to  Sir  Hercules  Langrishe, 
written  from  Beaconsfield  in  1792,  Burke  summed 
up  the  character  of  the  ferocious  penal  laws  that 
ground  the  common  Irish  into  slaves,  in  the 
eighteenth  century.  "  You  hated  the  old  system  as 
early  as  I  did,"  Burke  said  to  this  Protestant  advo- 
cate of  Catholic  enfranchisement.  "  Your  first  ju- 
venile lance  was  broken  against  that  giant.  I  think 
you  were  even  the  first  who  attacked  the  grim  phan- 
tom. You  have  an  exceedingly  good  understanding, 
very  good  humour,  and  the  best  heart  in  the  world. 
The  dictates  of  that  temper  and  that  heart,  as  well 
as  the  policy  pointed  out  by  that  understanding,  led 
you  to  abhor  the  old  code.  You  abhorred  it,  as  I 
did,  for  its  vicious  perfection.  For  I  must  do  it  jus- 
tice :  it  was  a  complete  system,  full  of  coherence  and 
consistency;  well  digested  and  well  composed  in  all 
its  parts.  It  was  a  machine  of  wise  and  elaborate 
contrivance;  and  as  well  fitted  for  the  oppression, 
impoverishment,  and  degradation  of  a  people,  and 
the  debasement  in  them  of  human  nature  itself,  as 
ever  proceeded  from  the  perverted  ingenuity  of 
man." 

The  "principles  of  the  Revolution"  of  1688,  as 
Burke  well  knew,  were  declared  to  preclude  Catholic 
citizenship;  as  the  principles  of  the  United  King- 
dom have  since  so  steadily  been  declared  to  preclude 

[  139  ] 


home  rule.  Burke  scorned  the  dishonesty  of  this 
subterfuge.  *'  To  insist  on  everything  done  in  Ire- 
land at  the  Revolution,  would  be  to  insist  on  the 
severe  and  jealous  policy  of  a  conqueror,  in  the  crude 
settlement  of  his  new  acquisition,  as  a  permanent 
rule  for  its  future  government.  .  .  .  The  Protes- 
tants settled  in  Ireland  consider  themselves  in  no 
other  light  than  that  of  a  sort  of  colonial  garrison, 
to  keep  the  natives  in  subjection  to  the  other  state 
of  Great  Britain.  The  whole  spirit  of  the  revolu- 
tion in  Ireland,  was  that  of  not  the  mildest  con- 
queror. In  truth,  the  spirit  of  those  proceedings  did 
not  commence  at  that  era,  nor  was  religion  of  any 
kind  their  primary  object.  .  .  .  The  true  revolution 
to  you,  that  which  most  intrinsically  and  substan- 
tially resembled  the  English  revolution  of  1688,  was 
the  Irish  revolution  of  1782,"  when  the  Irish  volun- 
teers procured  Grattan's  independent  parhament. 

Catholicism  did  not  start  the  Irish  conflict,  but 
when  the  common  Irish  remained  Catholic,  it  gave 
the  garrison  a  fulcrum  for  Irish  persecution.  Sir 
Hercules  Langrishe  and  his  friends  enabled  the- 
better-off  Catholics  to  vote  in  1793,  but  the  Catholics 
were  not  emancipated  at  the  union,  and  the  broken 
pledge  of  Pitt  was  not  redeemed  till  poor  Welling- 
ton had  to  placate  O'Connell  in  1829.  One  can 
guess  the  size  of  the  "  commodious  bugbear,"  the 
pope,  by  recollecting  that  Wellington  himself  was 
immediately  accused  of  "  insidious  designs  to  intro- 
duce popery  ";  and,  on  the  field  of  Battersea,  fought 
an  exceedingly  comic  duel  with  Lord  Winchelsea,  to 
avenge  the  slander.  "  Wellington  fired  wide,  Win- 
chelsea in  the  air,  and  an  apology  was  given  in  writ- 
ing on  the  ground  and  publicly  " —  an  apology  which 

[  140  ] 


the  noble  WInchelsea  had  ready  in  his  hat.  But  the 
emancipation  of  Catholics,  needed  as  it  was,  did  not 
remove  the  economic  irritant  of  the  established 
church.  That  irritant  kept  Ireland  in  a  state  of 
monstrous  inflammation  until  the  act  of  1869.  The 
economic  hardship  of  it  is  well  summarized  by  J.  A. 
Froude.  "  The  wealthy  Protestant  grass  farmers 
ought  to  have  been  the  first  to  bear  the  expense  of 
the  Protestant  church.  They  paid  nothing  at  all. 
[Pasture  lands  were  exempted.]  The  cost  of  the 
Establishment  fell,  in  the  south,  exclusively  on  the 
poorest  of  the  Catholic  tenantry.  The  Munster  cot- 
tier paid  seven  pounds  a  year  for  his  cabin  and  an 
acre  of  potato  ground.  The  landlord  took  his  rent 
from  him  in  labour,  at  fivepence  or  sixpence  a  day; 
the  tithe  farmer  took  twelve  to  twenty  shillings  from 
him  besides,  and  took  in  addition  from  the  very  peat 
which  he  dug  from  the  bog  a  tithe  called  In  mockery 
'  smoke  money.'  " 

The  grievance  may  seem  slight  now,  though  the 
amount  of  the  Irish  land  commission's  receipts, 
from  1869  to  1913  (£41,630,449),  suggests  the  size 
of  the  vested  interest  before  the  landlordism  of  the 
church  was  abolished.  The  establishment  In  truth 
was  a  social  ulcer.  Almost  Immediately  after  eman- 
cipation the  tithe  war  began,  a  war  of  merciless 
exaction  and  terrific  reprisal.  Sometimes  the  cow 
of  the  Catholic  priest  would  have  to  be  seized  by  the 
tithe  proctor.  The  result  was  almost  invariably  a 
frantic  peasant  resistance.  In  1832  there  were  242 
homicides.  The  police,  all  of  whom  were  Protes- 
tants at  that  time,  reinforced  by  32,000  military, 
were  constantly  employed  In  aiding  the  Protestant 
clergy  in  collecting  their  tithes.     An  archdeacon  was 

[  141  ] 


stoned  to  death,  a  process-server  murdered  in  Kil- 
kenny; at  Knocktopher,  the  home  of  the  Langrishes, 
eleven  policemen  were  killed  and  seventeen  wounded 
in  an  affray  in  1831.  In  1832  there  was  a  police 
massacre  of  peasants  near  Rathkeeran,  County 
Waterford;  another  pogrom  at  Wallstown;  in 
1834,  "the  slaughter  of  Rathcormac."  This 
warfare,  narrated  in  detail  by  Mr.  Locker  Lamp- 
son  in  his  Ireland  in  the  Nineteenth  Century, 
j  went  far  to  intensify  fear  and  animosity  in  the  coun- 
try, to  pave  the  way  for  agrarian  crimes  in  the  next 
generation,  and  to  strengthen  the  evil  habit  of  gov- 
ernmental reprisal.  Almost  nothing  was  too  bad  to 
be  believed  of  the  Catholic  peasantry.  The  Prot- 
estant "  garrison  "  lived  in  terror,  and  "  the  whore 
of  Babylon  "  was  properly  berated,  especially  when 
a  rare  administrator,  Mr.  Thomas  Drummond,  came 
to  allow  Catholics  to  be  policemen,  to  prevent  magis- 
trates celebrating  massacres,  and  to  declare  that 
"  property  has  its  duties  as  well  as  its  rights." 

This  liberal  tendency  was  thought  shocking.  In 
the  "  garrison  "  Ireland  of  that  period  everything 
evil  was  usually  ascribed  to  the  "  baneful  influence  of 
popery,"  and  it  is  necessary  to  remember  that  the 
murders  of  1798  seldom  left  the  mind  of  the  good 
Protestant.  "  I  am  in  Wexford,"  wrote  a  charm- 
ing evangelist  Miss  Charlotte  Elizabeth  in  1837,  "  in 
a  place  where  blood  cries  from  the  ground  with  a 
mighty  and  terrible  voice."  Miss  Elizabeth  be- 
heved  that  "  the  turbulent  Irish  papist,  employed  in 
cutting  turf  from  a  bog,  may  himself  be  as  effectually 
reclaimed,  improved,  and  rendered  fruitful  in  all 
good  things  as  the  bog  itself  frequently  is."  But  not 
while    popery    persisted.     Miss    Ehzabeth    raised 

[  142  ] 


mournful  eyes  to  "  the  great  curse  of  Ireland,  the 
foul  blot  of  England's  unrighteous  legislation  — 
Maynooth,"  the  Catholic  theological  seminary. 
"  Take  away  popery,  and  Ireland  as  she  ought  to 
be  will  stand  out  in  all  the  beauty  that  is  now 
shrouded  in  corruption;  all  the  capabilities  that  are 
now  perverted  to  the  very  worst  purposes.  Bring 
to  the  Lord  the  offering  of  the  rescued  people." 

"  Nothing  is  stationary:  nobody  is  neutral.  Bind 
the  victim  hand  and  foot,  and  fling  her  yet  more 
hopelessly  into  the  iron  furnace  of  Rome:  deal  blow 
upon  blow  at  the  Protestant  church,  and  heap  insult 
upon  insult  on  the  Protestant  people:  banish  the 
Bible  from  every  school,  or  mutilate  according  to 
the  worst  approved  Popish  and  Socinian  patterns; 
leave  the  native  tongue  of  the  most  untamed  millions 
among  the  aborigines,  to  be  used  by  the  Romish 
priesthood  as  an  unfailing  instrument  for  exciting 
them  to  sedition  and  sanguinary  outrage;  do  all  this, 
and  as  much  more  as  you  please,  under  the  false 
colours  of  liberalism,  and  the  false  cant  of  '  useful 
knowledge.'  The  result  is  soon  told:  you  sow  the 
wind  and  shall  reap  the  whirlwind." 

Miss  Elizabeth's  one  consolation  was  the  estab- 
lished church.  "  Who  can  contemplate  the  specta- 
cle of  her  Christian  clergy,  maintaining  their  arduous 
post  against  every  discouragement  In  the  midst  of 
persecution,  affliction,  and  distress;  of  a  Protestant 
community,  continuing  stedfast  in  loyalty  under  all 
the  varied  trials  of  centuries  past,  and  still  holding 
the  land  for  those  who  give  them  neither  thanks  nor 
support,  without  the  strongest  emotions  of  sympa- 
thy, admiration,  and  respect?  " 

It  is  only  when  you  read  Miss  Charlotte  Ehza- 
[  H3  ] 


beth  on  the  evils  of  popery  that  you  forget  the  tithe 
law  and  understand  the  proselyting  soup-kitchens  of 
the  great  famine.  But  the  effort  of  the  priesthood 
"  to  rivet  the  fetter  of  papal  domination  on  the  necks 
of  the  poor  "  worked  not  at  all  the  way  this  lady 
imagined,  so  far  as  sedition  and  outrage  were  con- 
cerned. This  is  perhaps  the  one  anomaly  of  mod- 
ern Ireland  which  most  requires  to  be  explained. 

PRIEST-RIDDEN  ? 

The  word  "  priest-ridden "  is  not  unknown  to 
Americans.  The  conflict  between  the  Catholic 
church  and  the  English  government,  indeed,  is  per- 
haps the  most  fixed  underlying  conception  In  regard 
to  Ireland,  and  perhaps  the  most  disturbing  to  the 
conscientious  outsider.  Unhappy  thoughts  of  Que- 
bec, of  an  ignorant  population  and  an  implacable 
clergy,  fall  like  shadows  across  the  hopes  of  the  true 
republican.  So  long  as  a  separatist  body  is  so  pow- 
erful as  the  church,  a  body  offering  irreducible  oppo- 
sition to  the  ideals  of  the  liberal  state,  it  is  prac- 
tically impossible  for  such  liberals  to  think  of  Ire- 
land with  equanimity. 

This  stubborn  conflict  is  largely  a  phantasm.  If 
the  Catholic  church  in  Ireland  were  as  nationalistic 
as  all  this,  the  fate  of  Ireland  would  certainly  be 
complicated;  but  the  efforts  of  the  English  govern- 
ment to  do  business  with  the  Catholic  hierarchy,  irre- 
spective of  the  desires  and  needs  of  the  radical  Irish- 
man, have  been  attended  with  considerable,  even  re- 
markable, success.  Individual  Catholic  prelates 
have  shown  strong  patriotic  spirit  on  occasion.  In- 
dividual priests  have  died  with  weapons  in  their 
hands,  rebel  leaders  and  Inciters  to  rebellion.     But 

[  144  ] 


the  main  rec(5rd  of  the  Catholic  hierarchy  is  a  record 
of  smooth  self-seeking,  with  the  interests  of  Ireland 
discreetly  subordinated.  The  hierarchy,  as  is  well 
known,  favored  the  union  between  Ireland  and  Eng- 
land, with  the  promise  of  Catholic  emancipation  to 
soothe  them.  The  hierarchy  submitted  to  the  Eng- 
lish government's  veto  on  their  own  membership  and 
but  for  Daniel  O'Connell's  hullabaloo  would  have 
confirmed  that  veto.  The  hierarchy  condemned 
Fenianism,  stood  by  the  landlords  and  rent-collecting 
at  the  time  of  the  great  famine,  and  obeyed  the  land- 
lord embassy  at  Rome  in  taking  aft  early  stand 
against  Parnell.  Sir  Robert  Peel  did  not  apply  to 
Gregory  XVI  In  vain,  and  when  Gladstone  desired 
to  have  priests  "  silenced,"  he  was  allowed  to  take 
the  ear  of  the  Vatican  between  his  palms.  The 
"  plan  of  campaign,"  an  anti-landlord  programme, 
was  denounced  by  the  papacy.  As  a  companion  to 
these  compliances,  the  church  extended  its  control  of 
primary  education  and  won  the  pious  approval  of 
the  Catholic  Tories  of  England.  The  quid  pro  quo 
Inflamed  the  proselyters,  as  Miss  Charlotte  Eliza- 
beth attests,  but  the  English  government  had  by  that 
time  come  to  find  manipulation  more  convenient  than 
antagonism. 

PLAYING   THE    GAME 

No  Protestant  government  Is  incapable  of  prac- 
tical arrangements  with  the  Catholic  church.  The 
late  Freiherr  von  Bissing,  governor-general  of  Bel- 
gium, left  his  instructive  programme  for  the  manipu- 
lation of  the  church  In  Belgium.  "  Church  ques- 
tions in  Belgium,"  he  wrote  in  1917,  "have  often 
been  described  as  extremely  serious.     I  admit  that 

[  145  ] 


precisely  the  Germanic  provinces  of  Belgium,  which 
once  defended  their  Protestantism  so  heroically,  are 
today  far  more  convinced  adherents  of  the  Catholic 
church  than  are  the  easily-moved  Walloons;  any  Ger- 
man statesman  who  is  appointed  to  control  the  Ger- 
man administration  in  Belgium  must  realize  that 
Catholicism  is,  and  will  remain,  a  strong  and  living 
force  in  Belgium,  and  that  among  the  most  impor- 
tant requirements  for  successful  German  work  is  an 
intelligent  regard  for  the  Catholic  church  and  its 
disciples. 

"  The  problem  of  our  influence  upon  the  schools 
can  be  solved  in  agreement  with  the  clergy,  if  obliga- 
tory religious  teaching  is  introduced  in  the  same  way 
as  the  general  obligation  to  attend  school;  there  are 
a  number  of  points  of  contact  and  agreement  be- 
tween the  future  German  administration  and  the 
Catholic  clergy,  which  must  learn  more  and  more 
to  understand  that  the  Catholic  church  enjoys,  and 
can  enjoy,  under  the  power  of  Germany,  protection 
quite  different  from  that  which  It  will  have  If  Bel- 
gium, under  French  influence,  turns  towards  a  com- 
pletely Radical  philosophy." 

The  German,  as  usual,  manages  to  promote  de- 
cency by  making  his  practical  politics  sound  so  cut- 
throat; but  without  any  pronounced  heel-clicking  a 
policy  quite  similar  has  often  been  pursued  In  Ire- 
land. Up  to  1880,  certainly,  there  was  no  marked 
success  In  the  efforts  of  the  Catholic  hierarchy  to 
get  educational  favor  from  the  English  government. 
Before  the  emancipation,  as  Father  Corcoran's  ad- 
mirable study  shows  (State  Policy  in  Irish  Educa- 
tion, 1536-18 16),  the  one  Idea  of  Irish  education 
was  brutal  proselytizing,  and  that  purpose  distracted 

[  146] 


the  national  school  system  long  after  general  reli- 
gious and  secular  teaching  was  put  into  effect  in 
1 83 1.  But  by  1880  the  common  schools  were  assim- 
ilated to  sectarianism.  Schools  where  Catholics  and 
Protestants  mingled  had  been  largely  eliminated,  with 
the  Presbyterian  clergy  and  the  Catholic  priesthood 
managers  of  their  respective  segregate  schools. 
While  cherishing  this  great  object,  the  hierarchy 
could  scarcely  afford  to  antagonize  the  government, 
and  nationalists  like  Michael  Davitt  made  no  secret 
of  their  impatience  with  the  bishops.  "  A  very  few 
of  them  are  moderate  Nationalists,"  he  said  con- 
temptuously in  1904.  "The  majority  are,  If  the 
truth  were  known,  more  against  than  for  home  rule." 
All  through  the  nineteenth  century  the  opposite 
had  been  readily  supposed  by  outsiders,  but  almost 
every  test  has  clearly  revealed  the  hierarchy's  obedi- 
ence to  "  law  and  order  "  and  their  response  to  Eng- 
land's Intervention  at  Rome.  Certainly  up  to  the 
present  war  the  Vatican  has  yielded  to  many  English 
suggestions  and  counsels.  Sometimes,  as  In  the  case 
of  Wellington's  friend,  Dr.  Patrick  Curtis,  an  Eng- 
lish foreign  secretary  has  actually  secured  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  Catholic  primate,  but  usually  the 
English  government  has  acted  through  Rome  Itself. 
"  The  Interferences  of  Rome  in  Irish  affairs  of  a 
non-religious  nature,"  declared  Michael  Davitt, 
"  have  been  invariably  antagonistic  and  Injurious, 
either  In  their  direct  motives  or  Indirect  consequences. 
.  .  .  The  secular  or  political  effects  upon  Ireland  of 
Roman  Intervention  have  generally  been  selfish, 
short-sighted,  or  unfair."  The  flagrant  attempt  to 
stop  land  agitation  was  of  course  uppermost  in 
Davitt's  mind. 

[  147  ] 


One  might  suppose  that  during  the  tithe  war  or 
during  the  great  famine  the  clergy  would  have  led 
the  people  to  assert  themselves.  Mr.  Locker 
Lampson  cites  strong  opinions  to  the  contrary. 
"  The  Roman  Catholic  clergy,  as  a  body,"  declared 
Goldwin  Smith  in  regard  to  the  tithe  war,  "  were 
perfectly  blameless;  not  only  so,  but  in  spite  of  the 
terrible  temptations  to  play  the  demagogue  under 
which  they  were  placed  by  the  iniquity  of  the  code, 
they  arrayed  themselves  on  the  side  of  the  law. 
Their  own  dues  were,  in  fact,  sometimes  the  object 
of  attack,  as  well  as  the  tithes  of  the  Protestant 
parsons."  Palmerston  was  quite  certain  that  the 
clergy  were  fanning  discontent  In  1847,  ^^^  ^e  sent 
Lord  Minto  to  assure  the  Vatican  that  "  at  present 
in  Ireland  misconduct  Is  the  rule,  and  good  conduct 
the  exception  In  the  Catholic  priests,  and  that  their 
general  attitude  was  disgraceful,  Instlgatory  to  mur- 
der and  disorder."  What  more  could  the  dema- 
gogue hope  for?  But  Lord  Clarendon,  the  viceroy, 
belied  Palmerston.  "  With  respect  to  the  priests,  I 
must  again  report  that,  as  a  body,  there  is  not  in  the 
world  a  more  zealous,  faithful,  hardworking  clergy, 
and  most  of  the  older  priests  are  friendly  to  order, 
to  education,  and  to  the  general  improvement  of  the 
people.  There  are,  however,  some  unfortunate  ex- 
ceptions, but  It  Is  among  the  younger  clergy,  the 
curates  and  coadjutors,  that  the  real  mischief-makers 
are  to  be  found." 

MAKING   MISCHIEF 

Mischief-maker  is  a  relative  term,  as  Is  "  general 
Improvement."  What  Lord  Clarendon  meant,  of 
course,  was  that  the  clergy  were  not  making  mis- 

[  148  ] 


chief  for  the  viceroy.  They  were,  at  the  same  time, 
playing  havoc  with  the  starving  peasantry  during  the 
great  famine.  We  know  that  when  the  potato  crop 
failed  the  grain  crop  did  not  fail,  that  the  landlords 
took  the  grain  crop  for  their  rent,  that  vastly  more 
grain  was  exported  for  sale  than  was  imported  for 
charity,  and  that  the  priests  authorized  and  urged 
this  rent-paying.  An  eye-witness,  John  Mitchel, 
tells  what  this  meant.  "  At  the  end  of  the  six  years, 
I  can  set  down  these  things  calmly;  but  to  see  them 
might  have  driven  a  wise  man  mad.  There  is  no 
need  to  recount  how  the  assistant  barristers  and 
sheriffs,  aided  by  the  police,  tore  down  the  roof-trees 
and  ploughed  up  the  heaths  of  village  after  village  — 
how  the  quarter  acre  clause  laid  waste  the  parishes, 
how  the  farmers  and  their  wives  and  little  ones  in 
wild  dismay,  trooped  along  the  highways  —  how  in 
some  hamlets  by  the  seaside,  most  of  the  inhabitants 
being  already  dead,  an  adventurous  traveller  would 
come  upon  some  family  eating  a  famished  ass  —  how 
maniac  mothers  stowed  away  their  dead  children  to 
be  devoured  at  midnight.  ...  —  how  the  '  law  ' 
was  vindicated  all  this  while;  how  the  Arms  Bills 
were  diligently  put  in  force,  and  many  examples  were 
made;  how  starving  wretches  were  transported  for 
stealing  vegetables  by  night;  how  overworked  coro- 
ners declared  they  would  hold  no  more  inquests;  how 
Americans  sent  corn,  and  the  very  Turks,  yea,  Negro 
slaves,  sent  money  for  alms;  which  the  British  gov- 
ernment was  not  ashamed  to  administer  to  the  '  sister 
country  ' ;  and  how,  in  every  one  of  these  years,  '46, 
'47,  and  '48,  Ireland  was  exporting  to  England,  food 
to  the  value  of  fifteen  million  pounds  sterling,  and 
had  on  her  own  soil  at  each  harvest,  good  and  ample 

[  149  ] 


provision  for  double  her  own  population,  notwith- 
standing the  potato  bhght." 

The  peasants  obeyed  the  older  priests,  "  friendly 
to  order,"  but  there  was  a  limit  even  to  this  "  priest- 
ridden  "  obedience.  When,  after  the  famine  of 
1 879-1 880,  the  Parnell  movement  began  to  show 
the  peasants  a  way  out,  the  church  tried  once  to 
interfere  in  the  interests  of  order  and  property.  In 
1883  Rome  commanded  the  clergy  to  boycott  the 
Parnell  testimonial.  Up  to  that  time  £12,000  had 
been  subscribed.  The  pope's  manifesto  was  read  to 
the  people,  with  the  effect  that  the  dribbling  sub- 
scriptions swelled  to  a  torrent,  and  £39,000  was 
presented  to  Parnell.  This  was  one  of  those  papal 
efforts  "  to  curb  the  excited  feelings  of  the  multi- 
tude "  that  misjudged  the  degree  to  which  the  Irish 
are  docile.  I  am  speaking  here,  of  course,  of  na- 
tionalist docility.  There  is  a  municipal  docility  on 
which  the  priests  have  generally  been  able  to  count. 

A  special  study  of  Vatican  politics  might  reveal  the 
source  of  many  strange  variations  in  the  action  of 
the  Irish  hierarchy.  The  one  thing  certain,  how- 
ever, is  the  special  character  of  the  church's  Interest 
in  Irish  politics.  Sometimes  it  coincides  with  the 
interest  of  the  majority  of  the  people.  More  often 
it  is  narrowly  interpreted,  either  with  a  view  to  a 
particular  object  to  be  gained  from  England  or  with 
a  view  to  obeying  the  able  English  Tories  at  the 
Vatican.  It  is  never  disinterestedly  patriotic,  despite 
the  warm  allegiance  of  the  Irish  people.  Where  it 
seems  to  be  most  "  nationalistic,"  the  nationalism  is 
subordinate,  except  among  the  less  institutionalized 
younger  clergy. 

[  150] 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  AUTHORITY 
This  may  sound  like  an  intransigent  interpretation, 
obeying  an  Irishman's  supposed  bias  against  law  and 
authority.  That  would  be  foolish.  Without  au- 
thority, organization  is  impossible.  The  man  who 
resists  authority,  as  such,  foregoes  civilization. 
There  can  no  more  be  civilization  without  obedi- 
ence than  there  can  be  clocks  without  screws.  Nor 
is  organization  possible  without  Items  of  Injustice. 
The  man  who  disowns  authority  the  minute  he  expe- 
riences injustice  Is  a  child.  No  organization  can  be 
a  perfect  expression  of  personal  will.  No  author- 
ity can  stop  to  consult  the  personal  preferences  of  all 
Its  members.  Even  a  picnic  Involves  disagreeable 
subordinations.  And  when  the  thing  to  be  built  Is, 
say,  a  Panama  Canal,  not  a  sylvan  bonfire,  the  very 
job  itself  requires  sacrifice.  If  people  are  unwilling 
to  make  sacrifices  for  a  useful  common  object,  they 
merely  choose  a  permanent  enslavement  to  circum- 
stance rather  than  a  temporary  enslavement  to  pur- 
pose. Like  a  child,  they  put  wilfulness  before  will. 
But  what  sanctifies  authority  Is  the  common  object 
It  subserves.  And  the  great  danger  In  church  au- 
thority Is  clearly  its  desire  to  substitute  its  special 
for  the  common  will.  To  get  momentum,  authority 
Is  absolutely  obliged  to  resist  certain  kinds  of  inter- 
ference. It  Is  obliged  to  demand  a  free  hand.  But 
the  unbridled  will  is  exactly  the  mark  of  the  despot, 
and  when  authority  Is  allowed  to  assert  Its  own  limit- 
less and  Irrevocable  will,  the  man  who  accepts  it  Is  a 
slave.  Authority  may  seek  obedience  as  lovingly  as 
a  parent.  It  may  persuade  Itself  that  it  has  the 
common  object  In  mind.     But  once  It  grows  to  judge 

[  151  ] 


for  its  children  without  hindrance  in  its  own  field, 
it  will  feel  able  to  extend  the  field.  The  appetite  of 
authority  is  greedy.  Its  sophistries  are  Incalculable. 
Its  only  formidable  foe  is  democracy,  which  insists 
that  all  government  must  derive  from  the  consent  of 
the  governed. 

With  these  platitudes  in  mind,  it  should  be  easy 
to  understand  the  Irish  attitude  toward  authority. 
There  is  no  hatred  for  "  law"  in  the  passion  for 
home  rule.  Only  a  country  of  slaves  could  submit 
to  Crown  Colony  government.  All  through  Ireland, 
one  is  reminded  of  the  insolence,  the  entrenched  and 
armored  insolence,  of  Dublin  Castle.  With  no 
power  to  qualify  or  revise  the  authority  of  the  bureau- 
cracy, with  no  power  to  use  government  for  the  pur- 
poses of  local  welfare  except  it  pleased  the  whim  of 
authority,  Ireland  has  seethed  and  writhed  and 
cursed  like  a  tortured  child.  When  Dublin  Castle 
meant  well,  it  found  no  goodwill  in  the  country. 
Centuries  of  despotism  had  destroyed  goodwill. 
The  deepest  hatred  exists  today,  although  latent,  for 
the  authority  of  Dublin  Castle. 

But  unbridled  will  Is  not  confined  in  Ireland  to 
Dublin  Castle.  The  people  who  hate  Dublin  Castle 
were  obliged  to  find  an  organization  of  their  own, 
an  organization  of  national  will.  They  developed 
this  organization  In  the  parliamentary  party.  And 
the  parliamentary  party,  devoted  to  the  common 
object  of  home  rule,  soon  developed  the  greedy  appe- 
tite of  authority.  Being  an  organization  of  popular 
will,  with  a  careful  system  of  delegates,  it  has  ex- 
tended its  field  over  all  popular  activity,  and  done 
its  best  to  destroy  free  thought.  To  secure  Immu- 
nity from  this  monster,  every  other  organization  is 

[  152  ] 


constrained  to  declare  Itself  non-sectarian  and  non- 
political  —  to  begin  by  protesting  Its  Innocence.  But 
thought  leads  to  will,  and  the  parliamentarians  have 
undoubtedly  striven  to  destroy  free  thought.  Thus 
there  is  the  spectacle  of  parliamentary  Interference 
with  every  organization  that  asserts  its  independ- 
ence. The  trepidation  of  Dr.  Douglas  Hyde,  when 
president  of  the  Gaelic  League,  was  one  of  the  typical 
results  of  overweening  parliamentarianism.  For 
years  the  parliamentary  party  took  the  suspicious 
attitude  toward  the  Gaehc  League  that  a  publican 
would  take  toward  a  confectioner.  They  regarded 
subscription  to  the  Gaelic  League  as  money  filched 
from  their  war-chest,  energy  diverted  from  their 
sacred  cause.  The  Abbey  Theatre  was  another  vic- 
tim of  political  despotism.  The  Abbey  Theatre 
dared  to  fiddle  while  the  parliamentarians  burned. 
Culture  was  a  political  Irrelevance. 

But  If  the  parliamentarians  asserted  dominance 
over  poets  and  philologists,  they  had  a  rival  in  the 
ruling  genius  of  the  Catholic  church.  Free  thought 
was  discouraged  by  the  politicians  for  tactical  rea- 
sons. It  has  long  been  discouraged  by  the  contem- 
porary leader  of  the  hierarchy,  on  principle.  Any 
man  who  dared  to  disagree  with  this  prince  of  the 
church  was  treated  with  the  brutality  of  a  strong 
man  spoiled  by  sycophants,  parasites  and  cowards. 
In  him  there  was  an  Insolence  worse  than  the  Inso- 
lence of  Dublin  Castle.  A  bull  In  Ireland's  intel- 
lectual china  shop,  he  snorted,  bellowed  and  raged 
at  the  very  existence  of  a  thought  not  his  own.  Most 
churchmen  oppose  opinion  indirectly.  The  Irish 
cardinal  was  a  professed  and  truculent  obscurantist. 
To  the  episcopal  palace  he  translated  the  tactics  of 

[   153  ] 


a  tyrannical  peasant  dealing  with  dependent  chil- 
dren. It  was  once  said  that  a  group  of  railroad 
directors  without  J.  P.  Morgan  were  like  cows  with- 
out a  bull.  The  leader  of  the  prelates  has  had  much 
the  same  relation  to  his  colleagues  in  Ireland. 
When  he  tried  to  gore  Sir  Horace  Plunkett,  there 
was  no  man  amongst  them  to  say  one  disinterested 
word.  The  truth  meant  nothing  to  him.  If  it 
meant  anything  to  any  of  the  others,  they  said  noth- 
ing—  merely  trembled  in  their  petticoats. 

It  is  this  aspect  of  authority,  if  no  other,  that 
makes  the  ultramontane  character  of  Irish  Catholi- 
cism so  serious.  But  loyalty  is  not  likely  to  permit 
any  contumacy  or  modernism  until  there  is  no  fur- 
ther constitutional  use  for  the  solid  Catholic  major- 
ity in  Ireland.  It  is  the  absence  of  home  rule  that 
has  saved  the  church  from  anti-clericalism.  Once 
home  rule  is  established  the  church  must  be  pre- 
pared for  a  new  mood  in  Ireland. 


I  154  J 


PART  III 
CONSEQUENCES 

You  read  her  as  a  land  distraught, 

Where  bitterest  rebel  passions  seethe. 
Look  with  a  core  of  heart  in  thought, 

For  so  is  known  the  truth  beneath. 
She  came  to  you  a  loathing  bride, 

And  it  has  been  no  happy  bed. 
Believe  in  her  as  friend,  allied 

By  bonds  as  close  as  those  who  wed. 

George  Meredith. 


VI 
THE  ECONOMIC  LEGACY 

BURYING   THE    PAST 

IN  EARLY  everything  that  has  been  said,  so  far,  Be- 
longs to  the  past,  and  it  seems  uncharity  to  dwell 
upon  it.  Among  nations  that  are  united  today, 
either  by  amity  or  by  law,  there  are  many  that  were 
once  in  murderous  opposition,  sundered  by  declared 
war  or  by  revolution.  No  history  could  be  more 
bloody  than  that  of  England  and  Scotland,  and  yet 
the  most  loyal  Scot  thrilling  to  the  name  of  Wallace 
or  heartened  by  the  thought  of  Bruce  Is  just  as  ready 
to  die  for  Britain  as  a  Percy.  England  and  the 
L^nited  States  rise  above  remote  conflict  and  recent 
friction.  England  and  France  make  common  cause. 
It  is  in  the  character  of  nations,  as  of  persons,  to  end 
quarrels  and  compose  difi^erences,  and  let  the  dead 
bury  the  dead.  To  refuse  to  do  this,  to  cling  to 
grievance,  is  not  merely  morbid  and  vicious;  it  vio- 
lates the  social  principle  and  prohibits  sanity. 

It  would  not  be  difficult  to  make  a  long  list  of 
modern  Irishmen  who,  within  the  British  empire, 
have  found  it  entirely  possible  to  have  honorable 
careers.  Leave  aside  such  Protestant  Irishmen  as 
have  come  to  the  top  in  the  British  army  and  navy  — 
descendants  of  the  colonization  even  if,  as  In  the  case 
of  Wellington  or  Lord  Roberts,  their  families  had 
been  In  Ireland  for  hundreds  of  years.     Leave  aside 

[  157  ] 


such  Protestant  Irishmen  as  Bernard  Shaw  and  W. 
B.  Yeats  and  John  Synge  and  Oscar  Wilde  and  A.  E. 
and  that  celebrated  Episcopalian  convert  (or  is  it 
Anabaptist?)  George  Moore.  There  is  still  a  nota- 
ble hst,  Irish  and  papist,  of  men  who  found  that 
their  heredity  was  no  fatal  barrier  within  the  empire. 
Lord  Charles  Russell  of  Killowen,  Lord  MacDon- 
nell  of  Swinford,  Sir  Gavan  Duffy,  Sir  William  But- 
ler, are  among  the  first  to  drift  into  the  mind,  men 
promoted  to  high  office  within  the  governmental 
scheme  itself  and  not  at  the  cost  of  disavowing  na- 
tionality or  religion. 

Why  Is  It,  then,  that  Irish  nationalists  scorn  the 
suggestion  of  Sir  Horace  Plunkett  —  Irish  history  is 
a  thing  for  Englishmen  to  remember  and  for  Irish- 
men to  forget?  Why  Is  It  that  the  past,  the  musty 
past.  Is  a  living  reality  for  Irishmen,  a  memory  with 
a  sabre  tooth?  Is  it  Celtic  contrariness,  or  Celtic 
mystery,  or  Celtic  twilight?  Why  do  Irishmen  in- 
sist on  the  past?  Careers  await  them  within  the  em- 
pire. The  empire  Itself  awaits  them,  as  It  awaited 
the  Scotchman.  Why  do  they  not  reach  out  the  fra- 
ternal hand? 

THE  ENGLISHMAN  SETS  HIS  JAW 
The  answer  Is,  of  course,  partly  psychological. 
For  all  his  great  gifts,  the  greatest  gift  of  the  Eng- 
lishman is  not  putting  himself  In  the  alien's  place, 
and  at  any  moment  he  Is  likely  to  revive  all  the  past 
by  some  act  of  stupid  and  unimaginative  selfishness. 
But  a  deeper  explanation  than  this  must  be  brought 
forward.  The  absence  of  considerateness  Is  a  hard 
fact  of  life;  it  Is  not  only  what  every  Irishman  knows 

[  158  ] 


but  what  every  Chinook  knows,  one  of  the  grim 
proofs  of  man's  "  inherent  vice."  There  is  a  more 
concrete  reason  why  the  past  is  a  living  reality  in 
Ireland.  It  is  the  effect  in  practice,  sustained  and 
persistent  and  inflammatory,  of  English  privilege  and 
self-preference  in  Ireland.  If  the  harmful  conse- 
quences of  the  past  were  not  tenderly  nursed  and 
protected,  there  would  be  no  Irish  question  today. 
But  while  the  Englishman  often  makes  the  most  ade- 
quate acknowledgments  of  the  sins  of  his  grand- 
fathers, he  does  so  in  the  persuasion  that  verbal 
atonement  suffices.  The  grubbing  act  of  restitution, 
the  tedious  amendment  of  the  past  in  terms  of  pres- 
ent advantage  and  present  increment,  is  always 
slowly  undertaken  and  is  frequently  beyond  his  com- 
prehension; so  that  the  more  impatient  Irishman  calls 
him  a  hypocrite  and  wishes  him  tortured  In  hell.  It 
is  astounding  to  a  good  Englishman,  ready  to  admit 
stupidities  and  even  crimes,  that  his  sense  of  justice 
should  be  called  into  question.  He  feels  just.  He 
has  always  paid  his  way  scrupulously,  met  his  obli- 
gations promptly,  kept  his  appointment  punctually, 
changed  his  linen  regularly,  and  added  charity  as  a 
moral  bouquetiere.  Why,  then,  should  a  boisterous 
Irishman  be  so  ready  to  point  a  blunderbuss  at  his 
head?  The  situation  is  so  offensive  to  the  good 
Englishman  that  he  is  quite  ready  to  pigeonhole  the 
code  he  employs  in  dealing  with  equals  and  to  open 
up  the  code  he  is  forced  to  employ  in  dealing  with 
inferiors;  the  code  that  Germans  call  "blood  and 
iron,"  that  Irishmen  call  coercion.  The  manner  of 
the  accuser,  unfortunately.  Is  rather  likely  to  reach 
the  Englishman's  amour  propre  before  it  reaches  his 

[  159  ] 


sense  of  justice;  and  if  self-respect  is  called  into  ques- 
tion before  anything  else,  he  declines  to  argue.  He 
even,  unchristianly,  sets  his  jaw. 

SICK   EGOISM 

But  setting  one's  jaw  is  a  preposterous  way  to  meet 
the  situation,  either  for  Englishman  or  for  Irishman, 
except  in  the  actual  tug  of  war.  The  Irishman's 
mere  anger  is  natural  but  impotent.  The  English- 
man's self-respect  is,  beyond  doubt,  an  admirable 
fixture,  but  it  is  no  more  entitled  to  interpose  itself 
between  the  critic  and  the  facts  than  a  lady's  modesty 
to  interpose  itself  between  her  physician  and  her  ail- 
ment. Self-respect  is  commendable,  provided  the 
proportion  of  self  in  it  is  strictly  regulated.  Other- 
wise it  goes  into  the  irrational  class  with  divine  right, 
manifest  destiny,  Deutschtum  and  the  rest.  It  is, 
that  is  to  say,  the  disguise  of  a  sick  and  greedy  ego- 
ism. It  is  only  a  sick  egoism  that  cannot  afford  to 
have  its  motives  turned  inside  out  and  rationalized. 

A  tenderness  for  England  has  led  to  some 
amazing  promenades  of  self-respect  in  the  last  few 
years.  Mr.  Arnold  Bennett,  for  example,  went  to 
Dublin  Castle  in  19 17  to  learn  exactly  what  Ireland's 
remonstrance  against  Dublin  Castle  was,  and  he 
cabled  his  opinion  to  the  United  States  that  the  worst 
offence  of  Dublin  Castle  was  its  habit  of  permitting 
dossiers  to  be  written  on  both  sides  of  the  paper. 
It  was  a  thin  joke  to  spread  over  so  vast  and  so 
discredited  a  bureaucracy.  Since  it  was  denounced 
by  Joseph  Chamberlain  thirty  years  ago  little  has 
been  done  to  reform  Dublin  Castle.  It  is  only  a  few 
years  since  President  Lowell  of  Harvard  made  un- 
equivocal criticism  of  British  administration  in  Ire- 
[  160] 


land.  The  effort  of  so  honest  an  Englishman  as 
Arnold  Bennett  to  play  ostrich  in  this  predicament 
shows  the  overwhelming  difficulty  of  being  dispas- 
sionate. Mr.  Austen  Harrison  of  the  English  Re- 
view, indeed,  refused  to  behave  as  Mr.  Bennett  did. 
Unlike  Bernard  Shaw  in  urging  the  expedient  of  a 
branch-office  home  rule,  he  did  not  try  to  juggle 
water  on  both  shoulders.  But  the  candor  of  Mr. 
Harrison  is  in  extraordinary  contrast  to  the  nlmble- 
ness  of  patriots  and  propagandists  for  whom,  at  the 
moment,  truth  was  In  the  second  place. 

TRUTH   IN  THE   FIRST   PLACE 

Until  truth  Is  put  in  the  first  place  and  kept  there, 
no  Irish  policy  can  be  a  broad  social  policy,  no  Anglo- 
Irish  goodwill  can  be  a  sound  goodwill.  The  tinkers 
and  handymen  have  been  trying  for  centuries  to 
mend  the  Irish  trouble  while  glossing  just  those  evils 
that  cause  the  Irish  trouble.  This  Is  political  idiocy. 
Until  the  men  and  establishments  that  have  a  vested 
Interest  in  the  perversion  of  Irish  life,  In  the  mal- 
formation and  distraction  of  the  Irish  community, 
are  Identified  and  deposed  by  statesmanship,  it  Is  ut- 
terly useless  to  talk  of  making  Irish  history  tolerable, 
or  burying  the  past.  The  past  Is  a  corpse  tied  to 
living  Ireland.  Neither  Mr.  Bennett's  enamel  nor 
Mr.  Shaw's  chaste  kisses  can  change  its  nauseating 
properties.  The  bonds  of  that  foul  corpse  have  to 
be  severed  before  It  can  be  Interred  and  forgotten. 
How  was  the  union  with  Scotland  kept  from  fester- 
ing? How  was  the  entente  between  France  and 
England  matured?  Only  by  a  recognition  of  mutual 
will,  a  consideration  of  mutual  advantage.  Mr.  Ar- 
nold Bennett  spends  four  days  among  the  records  of 

[  i6i  ] 


Dublin  Castle,  and  loudly  testifies  that  the  Interests 
of  Ireland  are  secure.  The  Interests  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine,  would  not  the  German  bureaucratic  rec- 
ords convince  Herr  Sudermann  that  the  Interests  of 
Alsace-Lorraine  are  well  taken  care  of?  It  is  not 
in  this  fashion  that  truth  is  pursued. 

POUNDS   AND  PENCE 

There  is  nothing  wistful,  nothing  imponderable, 
about  an  economic  disadvantage,  and  I  propose  to 
submit  at  the  beginning  one  frank  and  brutal  argu- 
ment why  Ireland  should  not  have  home  rule.  It  is 
not  my  own  argument.  It  Is  the  argument  of  Mr. 
Austen  Chamberlain,  part  of  that  case  Against 
Home  Rule  prepared  before  the  war  (1912)  by 
Lord  Londonderry  and  Sir  Edward  Carson  and  Mr. 
Balfour  and  Earl  Percy  and  Lord  Charles  Beres- 
ford,  edited  by  S.  Rosenbaum.  I  give  it  in  Mr. 
Chamberlain's  own  words: 

"  We  do  not  always  sufficiently  realize  that  on  the 
other  side  of  the  St,  George's  Channel  lies  a  country 
whose  annual  imports  amount  to  sixty-five  millions 
sterling.  Even  less  do  we  realize  that  one-half 
(thirty-two  millions  sterling)  is  the  value  of  the  im- 
ports of  manufactures,  mainly  British,  into  Ireland. 
This  trade  in  manufactured  goods  is  not^only  already 
enormous.  It  is  rapidly  growing.  It  has  increased  by 
more  than  four  millions  in  four  years.  Any  ill- 
considered  legislative  measure  [home  rule]  which  in- 
terfered with  or  disturbed  this  great  volume  of  trade 
would  no  doubt  cause  serious  loss  to  Ireland;  but  it 
would  bring  bankruptcy  and  disaster  to  many  British 
firms  and  their  workmen." 

You  perceive  the  statesmanship.  Ireland  con- 
[  162  ] 


sumes  £32,000,000  worth  of  British  manufactures  a 
year.  It  is  an  excellent  market  for  the  British  man- 
ufacturer. If  an  "ill-considered"  measure  like 
home  rule  should  be  passed,  this  consumption  of 
manufactured  goods  might  be  "  interfered  with  or 
disturbed."  Therefore,  British  workmen,  see  where 
your  interests  lie.     Vote  against  home  rule. 

What  did  Mr.  Chamberlain  mean  by  "  dis- 
turbed "  ?  It  is  possible  he  thought  that  home  rule 
might  derange  the  confidence  of  the  British  manu- 
facturer, or  might  render  the  Irish  consumer  incom- 
petent. But  real  "  disturbance  "  could  only  mean 
one  thing  to  Mr.  Chamberlain,  the  building-up  of 
Irish  manufactures  under  home  rule,  and  the  conse- 
quent falling  off  of  imports.  It  is  here  that  the 
frank  brutality  of  the  Birmingham  millionaire  came 
in.  As  a  British  statesman,  an  apologist  for  the 
union  and  an  exponent  of  its  benefits  to  the  Irish,  he 
preferred  to  see  the  Irish  kept  In  an  artificial  non- 
productiveness  to  seeing  them  taken  out  of  the  zone 
of  British  ministerial  supervision  and  costly  private 
bills  and  placed  in  a  zone  of  self-knowledge  and  self- 
help.  The  consideration,  in  this  Instance,  was  not 
the  feebleness  and  worthlessness  of  the  Irish,  espe- 
cially the  southern  Irish.  It  was  not  the  uselessness 
of  aiding  the  Irish  to  help  themselves.  It  was  the 
naked  fact  that  Ireland  was  one  of  the  best  cus- 
tomers of  the  British  manufacturer,  a  customer  that 
made  no  demands  on  England  in  respect  to  her  cus- 
tom but  that  consumed,  obediently  and  unquestlon- 
ingly,  £32,000,000  worth  a  year,  "  rapidly  grow- 
ing." Should  the  House  of  Commons  interfere  with 
this  stream  of  trade  by  any  "  ill-considered  "  meas- 
ure?    Never,  if  the  statesmanship  of  Mr.  Austen 

[  163  ] 


Chamberlain  were  consulted.  The  profit  on  £32,- 
000,000  per  annum,  rapidly  growing,  ought  not  to 
be  thrown  away. 

THE  IMPERIAL  BACKYARD 
But  what  has  the  British  government  to  do  with 
this?  In  what  degree  is  this  huge  annual  import  a 
sign  of  anything  except  British  enterprise  and  Irish 
sloth?  Now  that  democracy  is  largely  economic 
this  question  is  worth  asking,  and  the  emphatic  Irish 
answer  worth  hearing.  The  withholding  of  home 
rule  and  fiscal  autonomy  is  often  represented  as  a 
question  of  no  great  practical  moment,  and  Ireland's 
protests  in  this  respect  are  often  taken  as  sentimental 
and  negligible.  But  the  realities  underlying  home 
rule  have  more  than  patriotic  passion  in  them. 
They  are  matters  of  economic  life  and  death. 

I  go  back  to  the  outspoken  Mr,  Chamberlain. 
*'  The  commercial,  banking,  and  railway  systems  of 
Ireland  are  intimately  associated  with  those  of  the 
greater  and  more  firmly  established  systems  of  Great 
Britain.  Irish  railways  are  so  largely  controlled  at 
the  present  time  by  British  concerns,  and  there  exist 
so  many  agreements  and  understandings  between 
them  and  British  companies  as  to  facilities  and  rates, 
that  they  might  be  regarded  as  part  of  the  same  net- 
work of  communications.  Hardly  less  close  are  the 
relations  which  now  exist  between  British  and  Irish 
banks." 

The  subject  of  British  and  Irish  banks  I  shall 
leave  aside,  merely  saying  that  Irish  deposits  have 
always  kept  slinking  to  foreign  investment  via  Lon- 
don. This  benign  intimate  railway  association 
which  Mr.  Chamberlain  is  so  anxious  should  remain 

[  164  ] 


undisturbed  is  a  more  pregnant  topic.  It  illustrates 
the  great  ease  with  which  a  commercial  colony  like 
Ireland  can  be  kept  panting  at  the  heels  of  British 
and  Anglo-Irish  interests,  with  the  big  railway  lobby 
of  the  House  of  Commons  to  see  that  nothing  goes 
wrong.  This  is  not  an  old,  unhappy,  far-off  thing, 
a  hardship  of  yesterday.  It  is  a  living  contemporary 
effect  of  the  repression  of  Ireland,  its  subordination 
to  the  owning  class  in  both  countries,  particularly 
England.  The  people  who  pay  for  it  are  the  native 
colonized  Irish.  It  is  a  bitter  consequence  of  their 
having  been  colonized. 

STANDING  PAT  FOR  PAT'S  SAKE 
The  Irish  railway  situation  gives  an  excellent  clue 
to  the  large  problem  of  Irish  under-production,  its 
agricultural  and  industrial  under-development.  In 
1906-19 lo  there  was  an  Irish  railways  commission, 
appointed  by  the  viceroy.  Three  of  its  seven  mem- 
bers, one  an  assistant  secretary  of  the  board  of 
trade,  another  general  manager  of  the  Lancashire 
and  Yorkshire  railway,  the  third  a  man  of  means, 
signed  a  minority  report.  There  are  circles,  I  am 
sure,  in  which  this  minority  report  would  be  taken  as 
the  last  word  of  sound  business  judgment.  It  en- 
tirely opposes  the  notion  of  railways  publicly  man- 
aged. It  declares,  with  no  intention  of  being  funny, 
that  "  the  railway  companies  have  done  what  they 
could,  in  their  own  interest,  and  so  in  the  public  in- 
terest, to  stimulate  traffic,"  begging  the  whole  ques- 
tion of  public  interest. 

"  If  traffic  has  not  expanded  as  much  as  it  might 
had  the  conditions  been  more  favorable,  the  failure 
must,  we  think,  be  attributed  to  a  variety  of  causes, 

[  165  ] 


of  which  railway  service  is  only  one,  and  not  the 
most  important."  Those  causes  are  indicated  under 
the  large  head,  "  the  decay  of  industries."  In  an 
aside  the  minority  admits  that  the  railways  "  have 
tended  to  check  the  development  of  Irish  manufac- 
tures by  facilitating  the  imports  of  British  goods  into 
Ireland,"  but  this  of  course  has  nothing  to  do  with 
"  the  decay  of  industries."  Emigration,  perhaps, 
had  a  good  deal  to  do  with  that  decay?  Very  likely; 
but  "  so  far  as  a  congested  population  have  taken 
advantage  of  improved  communications  to  better 
their  condition,  the  result  cannot  be  regarded,  eco- 
nomically speaking,  as  an  unmixed  disadvantage." 
The  decay  of  industries  is,  evidently,  as  you  see,  to 
be  attributed  to  one  thing  alone  —  the  decay  of  in- 
dustries !  The  report  then  proceeds  to  compare  Ire- 
land to  Belgium  and  to  Denmark.  It  instructs 
Ireland  on  the  importance  of  increasing  its  products 
so  that  the  railways  may  justifiably  cut  their  rates. 
Reducing  rates  would  be  "  to  begin  at  the  wrong 
end.  It  would  be,  in  effect,  to  impose  a  tax  upon 
railways  receipts  in  order  to  put  a  premium  upon 
faulty  agricultural  methods.  If  winter  dairying 
were  established  first,  we  believe  that  there  would  be 
such  an  increase  in  the  volume  and  regularity  of  the 
trafl&c  that  lower  rates  would  follow  as  a  matter  of 
course." 

Then  comes  that  wisdom  of  the  capitalist,  which 
is  so  often  sedentary.  "  How  large  a  field  is  open 
to  Ireland  in  this  single  industry  [butter]  is  shown 
by  the  fact  that  in  1908  butter  to  the  value  of  £24,- 
080,912  was  imported  into  the  United  Kingdom 
from  abroad  against  only  £4,026,023  exported  from 
Ireland." 

[  166] 


What  Ireland  wants  from  its  railways,  you  ob- 
serve, is  adroitly  turned  round  into  what  the  rail- 
ways want  from  Ireland — "improved  methods  of 
production,  and  increased  volume  of  trade."  Amal- 
gamation and  a  new  management,  "  made  up  largely 
of  the  most  important  chief  officers  of  the  existing 
railways,  and  the  most  prominent  directors  who  are 
commercial  men,"  is  the  chief  reform  desirable,  re- 
membering always  that  "  no  place  of  any  importance 
In  Ireland  is  unprovided  with  railway  communica- 
tion." 

THE   OTHER   ATTITUDE 

Considering  that  the  best  Irish  coalfields  have  no 
railway  communication,  this  last  statement  of  the 
minority  report  passeth  understanding.  Much  more 
fundamental,  however.  Is  Its  slack  conception  of  the 
deficiencies  of  Ireland  —  the  sad  decay  of  industry, 
the  mad  decrease  in  population,  the  faults  In  agri- 
cultural method.  These  consequences  of  the  past 
merely  make  the  railway  experts  throw  up  their 
hands.  No  "  artificial  stimulus  of  reducing  rates  to 
an  uncommercial  level,"  please!  Let  the  Irish  rail- 
ways go  on  paying  a  select  class  4  per  cent.,  as  they 
have  been  doing.  That  Is  the  "  commercial  level." 
And  then,  please,  please,  "  laissez  faire." 

The  majority  report  gives  a  smashing  answer  to 
this  dividend  preoccupation  of  the  three  English 
commissioners.  Four  men,  three  of  them  Irishmen, 
signed  the  majority  report.  These  three  were  Lord 
PIrrie,  a  Liberal,  the  chairman  of  Harland  and 
Wolff,  Belfast  shipbuilders;  Lt.-Col.  Poe,  a  Tory 
landlord;  and  Thomas  Sexton,  nationalist  ex-M,P., 
of  whom  Gladstone  once  said,  "  the  man  is  little 

[  167  ] 


short  of  a  master."  The  fourth  was  Sir  Charles 
Scotter,  chairman  of  the  London  and  South-Western 
Railway.  They  heard  the  same  248  national  and 
international  witnesses,  including  the  premier  of 
New  Zealand;  listened  to  the  same  facts  and  theories 
and  watched  the  same  clash  of  opinion  and  interest. 
They  came  out  of  the  inquiry  with  the  kind  of  con- 
structive policy  that  makes  an  honest  commission 
seem  the  most  creative  of  all  governmental  devices. 
The  majority's  suggestions  for  reforming  the  rail- 
ways have  their  special  value,  but  the  point  is  how 
clearly  they  exhibit  the  acute  reality  of  Irish  disad- 
vantage at  the  present  hour.  These  men  never 
stooped  to  the  impolicy  and  in  truth  the  wickedness 
of  dealing  with  Irish  disadvantage  in  the  spirit  of 
laissez-faire.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  necessary 
reparation  in  this  world,  reparation  as  a  preliminary 
to  the  recovery  of  function.  It  is  convenient,  for  ex- 
ample, to  define  emigration  as  "  taking  advantage  of 
improved  communication  to  better  your  condition," 
and  it  is  agreeable  to  hint  that  it  has  been  a  benefit. 
But  that  is  not  the  tone  of  persons  who  realize  the 
duty  of  reparation.  The  more  practical  and  imag- 
inative members  of  this  commission  did  not  shirk  the 
question  of  re-making  Ireland.  They  investigated 
in  the  public  interest  with  broad  and  sincere  concern. 
They  had  the  creative  energy  to  handle  the  railroad 
problem  as  something  more  than  a  problem  of  divi- 
dends. 

The  decay  of  industries  and  the  faults  of  agricul- 
tural method  are  fully  recognized  in  the  majority 
report,  but  the  evil  effects  of  railway  policy  are  never 
evaded. 

What  causes  have  retarded  the  expansion  of  traffic 
[  168  ] 


upon  the  Irish  lines?  There  have  been  increases, 
yes,  but  mainly  through  the  imports  of  flour  and 
bacon,  provisions  and  manufactured  goods,  "  pro- 
duced or  producible  in  the  country."  "  What  essen- 
tially constitutes  the  Irish  railway  problem,"  the  ma- 
jority agrees,  "  is  the  restriction  of  industry  and 
trade  in  Ireland,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  internal 
and  export  transit  rates  are  on  a  higher  scale  than 
the  rates  charged  for  conveyance  of  commodities 
which  compete  with  Irish  products  in  Irish  and  Brit- 
ish markets,  or  with  which  Irish  products  might  com- 
pete, if  conditions  were  rendered  less  disadvan- 
tageous to  Ireland  by  lower  scales  of  transit  rates." 
No  narrow  administrative  policy  can  help  in  a  sit- 
uation so  radically  wrong.  "  The  solution  of  such  a 
problem  is  as  far  outside  the  sphere  of  amicable 
effort  by  the  Board  of  Trade,  as  it  is  beyond  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Railway  and  Canal  Commission 
Court.  The  question  and  the  only  question  as  to  the 
future  of  Irish  railways,  referred  to  us  for  an  an- 
swer. Is  this :  — '  By  what  methods  can  economic, 
efficient,  and  harmonious  working,  be  best  secured?  ' 
The  answer  dictated  by  the  evidence  is  that  such 
working  cannot  be  secured  in  any  sense  commen- 
surate with  the  object  set  before  us,  namely,  the  full 
utilization  of  the  Railways  for  the  development  of 
Irish  resources  except  by  making  them  public  prop- 
erty, consolidating  them  into  a  single  system,  and 
working  that  system  under  representative  control  for 
the  benefit  of  the  country.  It  follows  that.  In  our 
judgment,  fractional  or  superficial  measures  would 
leave  the  essential  problem  still  unsolved,  and  its 
economic  evils,  to  all  practical  intents  and  purposes, 
unabated." 

[  169] 


THE    OCTOPUS 

The  nigger  in  the  Austen  Chamberlain's  unionist 
woodpile  begins.  I  think,  to  exhibit  his  curly  head. 
"  The  large  imports  in  coal  for  domestic  uses  which 
swell  the  returns  of  railways  traffic,  certainly  do  not 
suggest  development  of  Irish  resources,"  savs  the 
report,  "  more  especially  when  it  is  remembered  that 
there  are  coal  fields  in  the  country  which  are  worked 
only  to  a  limited  and  comparatively  unimportant 
extent,  and  which,  under  conditions  of  adequate  capi- 
tal, better  railway  communication,  and  more  favor- 
able rates,  might  be  extensively  opened  up,  to  the 
benefit,  not  only  of  the  mineral  districts  concerned, 
but  of  the  country  as  a  whole,  ...  It  Is  difficult  to 
understand  why  the  efforts  made  from  time  to  time 
to  secure  railwav  communication  have  up  to  the 
present  proved  ineffective.  The  Great  Southern 
Company  declined  to  construct  the  branch  them- 
selves, or.  even  if  it  were  constructed  by  others,  to 
work  it,  without  a  guarantee  against  loss,  and  this 
decision  seems  to  have  proven  a  deterrent  to  private 
enterprise,  which,  if  encouraged  by  substantial  as- 
sistance from  the  country,  would  probably  have  long 
since  surmounted  the  difficult)'." 

The  coal  of  Ireland,  "  net  tonnage  available  for 
use,"  was  estimated  by  Professor  Hull  in  iSSi  at 
182,280,000  tons.  The  amount  raised  per  year  is 
about  100.000  tons.  The  important  contrast  here 
is  not  between  the  enormously  greater  mineral  re- 
sources of  England  and  Scotland  but  between  the 
full  Irish  resources  and  the  meagre  Irish  production. 

Against  the  ironclad  competition  of  England  and 
Scotland  the  main  hope  of  Ireland  has  been  agri- 
[  170] 


cultural,  but  here  the  railroads  have  handicapped 
rather  than  helped  in  innumerable  small  discrimina- 
tory ways.  It  cost  14s  lod  per  ton  to  ship  bacon 
from  Cork  to  Tipperar}',  for  example,  as  against 
14s  4d  from  Liverpool  to  Tipperary,  via  Cork,  the 
railway  route  in  both  cases  being  the  same.  It  cost 
£5  per  ton  for  salmon  from  Limerick  to  London,  as 
compared  with  27s  from  Denmark,  and  £3  los  from 
Norway.  "  No  explanation  of  these  rates  appears 
to  have  been  given  by  the  railway  companies."  But 
Irish  industry  responds  to  railway  encouragement. 
A  Navan  factory  secured,  after  a  hard  struggle,  a 
satisfactory  rate  on  Windsor  chairs.  Its  output  of 
that  article  rose  from  383/2  doz.  in  the  second  half 
of  1907  to  472  doz.  in  the  second  half  of  1908. 
The  large  answer  of  the  railway  advocates  is  this: 
we  gain  no  more  dividends  by  such  cooperation,  why 
cooperate?  Which  leads  back  to  the  question  of 
control. 

But  my  main  object  in  citing  the  railway  commis. 
sion's  report  is  to  dwell  on  its  disclosures  of  Ire- 
land's emaciated  industrial  condition.  "  Transit 
is  a  heavier  item  of  cost  to  producers  and  con- 
sumers "  in  Ireland  than  in  Scotland  and  England, 
and  this  is  shockingly  important  in  view  of  inter- 
national competition.  The  plain  facts  of  competi- 
tion are  these:  "The  total  value  of  butter,  eggs 
and  bacon  imported  into  Great  Britain  from  Ire- 
land, in  1908,  was  £9,375,850,  as  compared  with 
£18,506,283,  the  value  of  the  same  commodities  im- 
ported from  Denmark,  which,  moreover,  is  only  one 
out  of  several  countries  exporting  agricultural  prod- 
uce. .  .  .  The  estimated  value  in  1908  of  beef,  mutton, 
pork,  bacon,  and  hams  imported  into  Great  Britain 

[  171  ] 


from  the  United  States,  Argentina,  and  Denmark 
amounted  to  about  twenty-six  millions  sterling;  while 
the  estimated  value  of  the  exports  of  cattle,  sheep, 
swine,  pork,  bacon  and  hams  from  Ireland  was 
under  seventeen  millions.  In  the  same  year  the  es- 
timated value  of  butter,  eggs  and  poultry  imported 
into  Great  Britain  from  the  United  States,  France, 
Belgium,  Holland,  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Russia 
reached  a  total  of  twenty-three  millions,  against 
about  seven  millions  from  Ireland." 

What  is  the  responsibility  of  the  railways? 
*'  The  conditions  of  Ireland  are  unquestionably  fa- 
vorable to  a  large  and  permanent  increase  in  the 
volume  of  its  export  trade  to  England;  and  though 
the  slow  development  of  this  trade  may,  to  some 
extent,  be  accounted  for  in  other  ways,  in  our  opinion 
it  would  be  greatly  stimulated  by  a  reduction  of  rail- 
way rates,  and  by  increased  transit  facilities.  We 
know  that  the  Continental  railways  give  very  low 
rates  for  traffic  exported  to  Great  Britain,  especially 
for  agricultural  products,  which  are  in  direct  com- 
petition with  those  of  Ireland,  and  we  recognize  that 
unless  means  can  be  found  to  place  the  Irish  trade 
on  a  footing  of  equality  with  that  of  the  Continent, 
it  is  hopeless  to  look  for  any  substantial  development 
of  the  former." 

That  responsibility  the  majority  report  had  Its 
own  programme  for  adjusting,  on  the  principle  that 
"  the  full  utilization  of  Irish  railways  for  the  de- 
velopment of  resources  "  would  help  to  "  mitigate 
the  pressure  of  poverty,  by  encouraging  rural  em- 
ployment, promoting  general  Industries,  and  expand- 
ing trade."  It  did  not  fail,-  however,  to  defend  its 
suggested  use  of  a  state  grant.     The  famous  report 

[  172  ] 


of  the  financial  relations  commission  of  1896  was 
Invoked  to  clear  this  claim  of  the  suspicion  of  pau- 
perism. The  report  ended  with  a  frank  acknowl- 
edgment of  Ireland's  "unsound  economic  condition; 
the  almost  total  want  of  non-agricultural  industries; 
and  the  loss  of  more  than  half  the  population  in  little 
more  than  half  the  century;  as  well  as  the  high  rates 
of  Imperial  taxation  to  the  very  limited  resources 
of  the  people."  These  are  strong  words,  and  they 
apply  to  the  Ireland  of  this  decade. 

THE    EXODUS 

"  The  loss  of  more  than  half  the  population  In 
little  more  than  half  the  century."  This,  even  more 
than  faulty  agricultural  method  and  decadent  indus- 
try, deserves  to  be  seen  as  a  direct  and  evil  conse- 
quence of  Irish  colonization. 

In  a  healthy  country,  emigration  Is  a  sign  of 
energy.  It  Is  either  militant  and  Imperial,  despatch- 
ing an  adventurous  tribe,  or  It  Is  healthily  selective, 
compelling  "  failures  "  to  find  In  another  land  the 
adjustment  they  missed  at  home.  It  Is  the  result  of 
surplus  vitality,  an  emigration  of  hope. 

Very  different  Is  the  emigration  of  repressed  vital- 
ity, the  emigration  of  despair.  In  the  former  case, 
men  adventure.  In  the  latter,  men  escape.  The 
former  is  a  sowing  of  seed,  the  latter  a  transplanta- 
tion. The  former  is  preponderantly  masculine. 
The  latter  takes  away  a  high  proportion  of  mar- 
riageable girls  and  women.  It  Is  the  retreat,  not 
the  advance,  of  a  nation.  It  Is  the  search  for  an 
adjustment  In  a  new  land  which  should  normally  be 
offered  at  home.  It  is  the  surest  sign  of  a  misman- 
aged state. 

[  173  ] 


Nothing  IS  more  human  than  the  habit  of  evasion. 
Once  a  people  learn  to  skirt  a  difficulty  instead  of 
facing  it,  every  freshet  deepens  the  new  channel,  and 
vitality  is  diverged.  The  old  stream-bed  remains, 
but  its  course  is  sluggish,  and  its  aeration  slow. 
Normal  obstacles  then  become  abnormal.  And,  at 
the  very  first  hint  of  difficulty,  the  new  channel  swells 
so  long  as  its  discharge  is  ensured.  The  nation  has 
put  the  force  of  its  life  into  an  altered  destiny. 

The  exodus  from  Ireland  is  the  chief  act  in  its 
modern  history.  It  began  in  desperation.  The 
steamship  made  the  conduit  broader  and  more  invit- 
ing, and  It  continued  by  the  force  of  circumstance 
and  habit.  After  seventy  years,  It  Is  no  longer  tor- 
rential. The  flood  has  dwindled  to  a  trickling 
stream.     But  the  stream  has  never  ceased. 

When  Irishmen  had  to  choose  between  extermi- 
nation and  rebellion,  they  brooded  on  saving  Ire- 
land by  force.  When  emigration  gave  them  a  new 
option,  they  said  "  God  save  Ireland,"  and  saved 
themselves.  The  cheap  steerage  rates  did  more  for 
imperial  conquest  than  centuries  of  rule  Imposed. 
Those  who  left  Ireland  carried  with  them  a  hatred 
of  England.  The  land  war  was  capitalized  by  the 
Irish  emigrant.  The  agrarian  Wild  Geese  won  the 
agrarian  Fontenoy.  But  It  was  to  build  up  Amer- 
ica, not  Ireland,  that  the  energy  of  seventy  years 
was  devoted.  This  energy  was  subtracted  from  the 
evolution  of  Ireland  as  a  nation.  To  measure  the 
loss,  however,  one  must  decide  whether  It  could  have 
overthrown  the  forces  that  turned  It  abroad. 

At  first  emigration  was  a  merciful  deliverance. 
In  a  poor  country  like  Ireland  government  was  the 
arbiter  of  life.     Government  was  so  perverted  as  to 

[  174] 


skim  the  cream  from  every  Irish  activity,  and  less 
separated  milk  was  left  to  go  round  than  could  pos- 
sibly keep  the  people  from  starving.  No  policy  of 
self-help  could  have  redeemed  the  rack-rented  ten- 
ants of  feudal  Ireland.  Government  not  only  failed 
to  do  everything  In  Its  power  to  prepare  the  common 
Irish  by  education  or  subsistence  for  decent  citizen- 
ship, but  it  actually  favored  the  exploitation  of 
decent  citizenship  In  a  number  of  base  and  Insensate  | 
ways.  Had  the  people  once  been  educated  and 
equipped  for  the  struggle  of  life,  It  Is  possible  they 
might  have  been  able  to  survive  the  handicap  of 
bad  government.  But  It  Is  one  thing  to  Impose  dif- 
ficulties on  a  mature  and  well-nurtured  man,  it  Is 
another  thing  to  Inflict  them  on  immaturity.  The 
common  Irish  were  at  that  level  of  civilization  where 
ascent  requires  a  pull  from  above;  and  the  govern- 
ment put  its  ladders  out  of  their  reach.  They  had 
not  even  the  power  to  climb  by  a  human  ladder,  for 
their  status  was  the  status  of  brutes,  and  their  will 
as  little  desired.  Badly  as  the  Negroes  are  being 
degraded  in  the  United  States  today,  little  as  the 
United  States  government  has  done  to  bring  the 
Negro  to  the  ladder  and  the  ladder  to  the  Negro, 
the  condition  of  the  common  Irish  up  to  1870  was 
Incalculably  worse.  Subject  to  the  will  of  the  over- 
lord in  all  departments  of  life,  they  were  inured  to 
subjection,  and  they  lived  from  hand  to  mouth. 
And  when  at  last  the  overlord  was  paid  off  and  sub- 
jection modified,  they  were  too  intimidated  to  climb. 
When  your  knuckles  have  been  smashed  every  time 
you  clamber  up  the  wall,  you  end  by  refusing  to 
clamber.  And  if,  at  the  other  side,  a  gap  Is  broken, 
you  rush  for  the  gap  without  reflecting.     Emigra- 

[  175  ] 


tlon  gave  the  Irishmen  an  exit  long  before  the  over- 
lord left  the  wall. 

THE    PENALTY 

Emigration  notified  England  day  after  day,  week 
after  week,  month  after  month,  year  after  year,  that 
the  state  of  Ireland  was  rotten,  and  that  the  com- 
mon Irish  were  making  this  tragic  declaration  of 
democratic  bankruptcy.  English  statesmen  knew 
that  Ireland  was  losing,  not  its  superabundance,  but 
its  lifeblood.  They  knew,  from  the  tally  of  their 
own  police  at  the  docks  and  the  profits  of  their  own 
steamship  companies  and  their  own  paid  Colonial 
advertisements  of  free  land  and  assisted  passages, 
that  emigration  was  weeding  out  the  fit,  and  leaving 
the  unfit  to  mate  and  breed  and  decay.  They  knew 
that  poverty  is  tragedy  and  insanity  is  tragedy  and 
blindness  is  tragedy.  They  knew  that  ignorance  Is 
tragedy,  and  a  life  without  enlightenment  the  breed- 
ing-bed of  mental  and  moral  and  physical  pestilence. 
But  it  took  Ireland  forty  years  of  this  bleeding  gash 
of  emigration  before  it  got  its  day  in  court,  and  in 
that  time  the  wound  had  drained  the  country  grey. 
The  time  came,  during  this  emigration,  when  the 
diflicultles  of  life  In  Ireland  were  minimized,  and  the 
government  no  longer  quite  Inaccessible.  But  by 
that  time  a  habit  had  been  formed  of  the  gravest 
kind,  and  the  spirit  of  the  nation  impaired.  The 
extent  of  Irish  emigration  is  almost  beyond  belief. 
No  such  proportionate  exodus  has  taken  place  from 
any  other  country  in  modern  times.  With  uncalcu- 
latlng  eagerness  the  Irish  thronged  from  the  land 
of  dispossession  to  the  hazy  promise  of  the  United 
States.  In  other  countries  this  process  was  later 
[  176  ] 


renewed.  Before  the  war  emigration  was  increas- 
ing immeasurably  among  the  Italians,  the  Slavs  and 
the  mixed  populations  of  Europe's  South  East.  No 
one  can  say  what  migration  will  mean  in  the  next 
decade.  Other  countries  may  yield  to  despair  and 
reproduce  the  depopulation  of  Ireland.  As  facts 
are  today,  however,  the  transplantation  of  the  Irish 
race  is  an  absolutely  unique  fact  in  modern  history. 
When  they  left,  they  were  not,  it  is  true,  succeeded 
by  aliens.  They  vacated  to  graziers  and  to  bul- 
locks. But  their  leaving  was  permanent.  Dead 
stumps,  not  saplings,  took  their  place. 

The  roll-call  of  Ireland's  early  exodus  is  now 
being  told  in  foreign  lands.  Out  of  every  hundred 
Irish  funerals  between  1900  and  19 10,  forty  took 
place  in  the  United  States.  That  means  that  over 
500,000  Irish  were  buried  outside  their  native  land 
in  those  ten  years.  Out  of  5,810,000  living  native- 
born  Irish  enumerated  in  Ireland  and  the  United 
States  in  19 10,  1,351,400,  or  nearly  a  quarter,  were 
permanent  residents  of  the  United  States. 

THE    CONSEQUENCES 

Meanwhile,  Ireland  begins  to  inherit  the  legacies 
of  emigration.  She  had  sent  away  sane  people,  she 
kept  mad  people.  She  had  sent  away  sober  people, 
she  kept  drunken  people.  She  had  sent  away  people 
with  good  eyes,  she  treasured  the  blind.  She  had 
despatched  people  who  wanted  to  get  on  in  the 
world,  she  retained  the  burdensome,  the  quiescent 
and  the  weak.  And  then,  with  her  most  marriage- 
able men  and  women  overseas,  she  turned  feebly  to 
reproduction,  and  of  the  small  number  that  she  re- 
produced —  small    because     her    marriages    were 

[  177  ] 


fewer  and  later  —  an  Increasing  percentage  were 
degenerate. 

The  patriot  is  usually  a  hot  person  who  makes  a 
virtue  of  being  impervious  to  disagreeable  facts. 
When  confronted  with  contemporary  emigration,  he 
finds  balm  in  recent  returns  that  show  the  losses  are 
now  "  normal."  Like  a  regiment  in  barracks,  the 
country  has  a  civil,  as  against  a  warlike  death-rate. 
But  those  who  survey  Ireland  critically  cannot  close 
the  subject  so  cheerfully.  The  campaign  is  over, 
but  we  inherit  the  effects  of  the  campaign.  Some  of 
the  emigrants  undoubtedly  left  because  Ireland  re- 
jected them,  but  the  vast  majority  left  because  they, 
willingly  or  unwillingly,  rejected  Ireland.  It  is  a 
commonplace  that  they  were  "  the  flower  of  the 
land."  At  any  rate,  85%  of  them  were  between  15 
and  45,  and  half  of  them  women  of  the  marriageable 
age. 

If  100  people  live  together  of  whom  one  Is  blind, 
and  one  a  cripple  and  one  a  drunkard  and  two  insane, 
and  five  hopelessly  invalid,  the  defectives  are  10%. 
But  If  10  of  the  able-bodied  ninety  go  away.  It  Is 
obvious  that  the  percentage  of  the  defectives  become 
12.5.  If  that  operation  Is  repeated,  it  Is  clear  that 
the  defectives,  without  increasing  in  number,  increase 
in  proportion  to  14.3.  The  little  group  has  not 
necessarily  degenerated.  But  the  degenerates  loom 
larger,  and  become  a  heavier  tax  on  the  people  who 
remain.  Where  the  90  supported  10,  you  find  70 
charged  with  10,  an  increased  obligation  of  over 
3%  apiece.  Those  who  go  away  may  contribute 
money,  but  the  money  can  scarcely  compensate  for 
the  extra  burden  on  the  shrunken  community. 

Something  like  this  has  taken  place  in  Ireland. 
[  178  ] 


The  process  is  the  same  as  the  weeding-out  process 
in  dairy  farming,  only  it  is  the  producers  that  have 
been  shipped,  and  the  small-milkers  retained.  Out 
of  the  4,390,000  people  in  Ireland  in  191 1,  there 
were  several  hundreds  of  thousands  who  were  obvi- 
ously deemed  unfit  to  emigrate.  When  this  process 
is  accounted  for,  it  is  easy  to  understand  why  Ireland 
is  pre-eminent  in  the  United  Kingdom  for  physical 
degeneracy.  But  unfortunately  there  is  such  a  thing 
as  absolute,  as  well  as  relative,  pre-eminence. 
When  you  retain  small-milkers  on  a  dairy-farm,  and 
when  you  breed  from  them  repeatedly,  you  event- 
ually achieve  a  cow  that  is  almost  a  prohibitionist. 
In  other  words,  you  get  what  you  bargained  for  with 
poor,  complying  Nature.  The  same  fact  is  true  of 
human  beings.  In  your  group  of  80  persons,  the  10 
degenerates  either  breed  together,  or  they  mate  and 
reproduce  with  the  70.  In  that  way  you  give  hered- 
ity whatever  vitiating  power  it  has,  and  to  judge 
from  certain  isolated  townlands  in  Ireland,  its  power 
to  vitiate  is  terrific. 

To  come  to  particulars,  here  are  the  figures  as  to 
lunatics,  known  and  labelled  lunatics,  in  the  United 
Kingdom : 

r     7     J       Per  Per  Per 

England 
y  ,         100,000     Scot-      100,000        Ire-      100,000 

.„   ,  Inhabi-  land  Inhabi-  land  Inhabi- 
tants tants  tants 

1871     56,755         249  7,729         230  10,257  189 

1881     73,113         281  10,012  273  13,062  252 

1891     86,795         299  12,595         312  16,251  344 

1901     107,944         332  15,899  355  21,169  474 

19"     133,157         369  18,636         391  24,394  557 

In    regard    to    total    blindness,    the    same    pre- 
[  179  ] 


Wales 

Scotland 

Ireland 

40,083 

94,319 

205,317 

41,893 

96,239 

203,036 

42,474 

97,294 

202,202i 

42,537 

96,895 

198,938 

eminence  was  to   be  noted  before  the  war.     Per 
100,000  inhabitants  In  1900: 

England  and  Wales   77.8 

Scotland    72.7 

Ireland    95.4 

The  total  for  Ireland  Is  4,263  persons. 
In  regard  to  old  age  pensions,  the  figures  are  even 
more  striking. 

Year  England 

1912  602,441 

1913  626,753 

1914  642,161 

1915  648,868 

Here  you  find  that  proportionately  Ireland  is 
called  upon  to  support  twice  as  many  helpless  aged 
poor  as  the  other  countries  in  the  United  Kingdom. 
This  points  to  two  facts.  The  first  is  the  unnatural 
proportion  of  hopeless  economic  servitude  In  Ire- 
land. The  second  is  the  unnatural  proportion  of 
aged  people  to  the  rest  of  the  population.  Super- 
ficially, it  looks  as  if  the  British  government  were 
being  twice  as  benign  to  Ireland  as  to  England  or 
Scotland.  Actually,  it  means  that  In  Its  accumula- 
tion of  poor  people  who,  after  a  lifetime  of  toil,  can- 
not pull  their  own  weight,  Ireland  Is  twice  as  badly 
off.  Does  this  mean  that  the  Irish  are  naturally 
paupers?     Compare  Ireland  and  Scotland. 

Year  Scotland  Ireland 

Paupers 

1900    65,929 

1905    73,363 

1910    75,626 

1915    67,632 

282,550 


Dependents 

Indoor 

Outdoor 

34,003 

43,820 

58,534 

37,297 

43,9" 

57,909 

40,955 

41,866 

55,496 

33,194 

38,072 

38,072 

145,449 

167,669 

ZlOfOll 

[    180] 

THE   INCURSION   OF   THE   DANES 

We  now  come  to  faulty  agricultural  method,  the 
most  serious  economic  handicap  in  Ireland.  From 
the  man  who  keeps  a  goat  in  the  secret  belief  that 
it  prevents  disease  among  his  cows  to  the  man  who 
scorns  any  kind  of  written  records,  there  is  every 
known  variety  of  ignorance  in  Irish  dairying,  and 
what  Is  true  of  dairying  is  true  of  raising  pigs  and 
sheep  and  is  also  true  of  tillage.  The  work  of  Sir 
Horace  Plunkett  and  the  Irish  Agricultural  Organ- 
ization Society  has  been  so  fruitful  as  to  be  beyond 
challenge.  In  an  island  of  critics,  no  critic  has  un- 
dermined this  greatest  triumph  of  Sinn  Fein.  But 
despite  the  I.  A.  O.  S.  the  commonplaces  of  modern 
agriculture  are  unlearned  and  unsuspected  In  a  great 
part  of  contemporary  Ireland,  and  the  observers  who 
have  gone  from  Ireland  to  Denmark  have  usually 
reported  the  sensation  of  progressing  fifty  years  by 
travelling  two  days.  The  facts  are  simple.  Danish 
farming  has  long  since  passed  out  of  the  stage  where 
the  routine  Is  traditional  and  archaic  and  the  best 
rule  a  rule  of  thumb.  Danish  farming  has  accepted 
and  adapted  the  technology  of  the  machine.  It  has 
become  a  modern  machine  industry.  The  economies 
of  cooperation  are  understood  and  applied  by  a  vast 
majority  of  the  farmers.  The  problems  of  transit 
and  delivery  are  handled  as  In  few  other  machine  In- 
dustries, so  that  Danish  butter  can  be  marketed  even 
In  Ireland  In  normal  times,  not  to  mention  such  Items 
as  £25,000  worth  of  Danish  butter  sold  In  Belfast 
every  year  In  the  winter  months.  "  The  land  In  Jut- 
land is  very  poor  —  bog  land  —  but  the  farmers 
seem  to  be  making  the  most  of  their  land,"  testifies 

[  181  ] 


a  British  veterinarian,  "  For  it  is  very  interesting  to 
notice  the  cattle  on  the  land.  They  are  tethered, 
and  as  they  eat  up  the  grass  they  are  passed  a  little 
further  along  on  to  fresh  grass,  and  so  on  until  they 
get  the  whole  field  mown  down  and  they  can  proceed 
again."  This  intensive  grazing  is  a  symbol  of  the 
mechanical  principle  in  Danish  farming.  "  Effi- 
ciency," implying  the  use  of  the  best  means  toward 
producing  for  profit,  is  a  hackneyed  word,  but  it  is 
the  only  word  that  describes  the  rigid  principle  by 
which  the  Danes  have  succeeded. 

BUTTER 

No  such  degree  of  "efficiency  "  is  to  be  found  in 
Ireland.  We  have  seen  the  figures  of  Irish  agri- 
cultural export  compared  with  Danish  agricultural 
export,  and  the  discrepancy  is  monstrous.  It  is  not 
in  the  state  of  Denmark  that  something  is  now  shown 
to  be  rotten.  The  minority  report  of  the  Irish  rail- 
way commissioners  minimized  the  question  of  high 
rates  but  It  quite  fairly  indicated  the  backwardness 
of  agriculture,  and  its  insistence  on  faulty  methods 
has  Its  healthy  astringency.  The  problem  of  winter 
dairying  alone  has  turned  the  hair  of  many  agricul- 
tural reformers  white,  so  stubborn  and  immovable 
are  the  Irish  farmers.  Trying  to  make  the  farmers 
"  efficient  "  is  like  trying  to  curl  limp  hair.  Even  Sir 
Horace  Plunkett  has  talked  sadly  of  their  defective 
characters  and  fallen  back  on  the  psychological  for- 
mulas of  the  sewing  circle  and  the  bible  class. 

Let  us  contemplate  butter.  The  Irish  milk  com- 
mission of  191 1  was  another  of  those  excellent  com- 
missions appointed  by  Lord  Aberdeen  to  trace  facts 
tQ  their  lairs  among  the  people,  and  to  capture  those 

[  182  ] 


facts  for  the  administrators'  zoological  garden. 
Diverging  from  milk  to  butter  the  report  of  the  com- 
mission went  into  agricultural  history  to  this  effect, 
"  Fundamentally  the  change  that  has  taken  place  in 
the  butter  making  industry  in  Ireland  has  been  the 
conversion  of  what  used  practically  to  be  a  retail 
trade  into  a  wholesale  trade.  The  old  method,  uni- 
versal up  to  1880,  was  that  each  farmer  made  but- 
ter at  home,  gradually  filling  his  firkins  with  layers 
of  butter  produced  under  all  sorts  of  different  condi- 
tions and  continually  varying  in  texture  and  flavour. 
These  firkins  he  sold  in  the  nearest  market,  direct  to 
local  customers,  or  to  middlemen  who  sometimes 
attempted  to  obtain  an  approximately  average  qual- 
ity by  blending  the  contents  of  a  number  of  firkins 
together  and  sometimes  merely  exported  the  butter 
without  even  this  attempt  to  remove  the  chief  com- 
mercial objection  to  butter  made  this  way,  i.  e.,  com- 
plete lack  of  uniformity  In  flavour,  colour,  texture 
or  package.  Each  dairy-farmer  under  this  system 
was  In  very  much  the  same  commercial  situation  as, 
for  Instance,  a  hand-loom  weaver;  and  In  the  old 
days  the  Irish  butter  trade  was  a  very  great  national 
asset,  just  as  the  hand-woven  linens  and  woollens 
were. 

"From  1880  foreign  competition  began,  first 
from  Denmark  then  from  other  countries,  not  only 
in  the  British,  but  actually  in  the  Irish  market.  The 
prices  obtainable  for  Irish  butter  produced  under  the 
old  conditions  were  so  unprofitable  that  a  large  num- 
ber of  dairy-farmers  went  out  of  the  business  alto- 
gether and  resorted  to  dry  stock.  The  trade  ap- 
peared to  be  doomed  to  destruction.  There  was 
only  one  way  to  meet  the  competition  from  abroad 
[  183  ] 


and  that  was  to  adopt  the  methods  of  our  competi- 
tors, install  the  latest  modern  machinery,  and  put 
upon  the  market  butter  of  a  higher  and  more  uniform 
quality.  Hence  the  introduction  of  the  creamery 
system.  At  first,  most  of  the  creameries  started 
were  proprietory  concerns,  i.  e.,  profits  earned  by  the 
creamery  belonged  to  the  individual  or  company  who 
owned  it.  But  by  a  fortunate  coincidence,  the  co- 
operative movement  was  founded  in  time  to  deal 
with  the  new  situation,  and  the  vast  majority  of 
creameries  in  Ireland  are  now  owned  by  the  dairy- 
farmers  themselves,  who  retain  all  the  profits  earned 
in  their  business.  In  this  way  the  Irish  butter  trade 
was  saved,  and  the  dairy  industry  was  retained  in 
Ireland." 

THE  REAL  DETERRENT 
So  far,  so  good.  With  no  extraordinary  help 
from  the  government,  with  economic  leadership  from 
Sir  Horace  Plunkett,  the  dairy-farmers  managed  in 
time  (with  some  unfortunate  consequences  to  the 
poor  local  baby)  to  keep  pace  with  the  modern  ma- 
chine. But  why  do  they  not  take  the  next  step  and 
adopt  winter  dairying?  "  It  is  not  too  much  to  say 
that  the  national  health  and  the  national  prosperity 
would  be  immensely  improved  in  consequence." 
There  are  two  sides  to  it,  of  course.  "  At  present 
the  farmer  declares  that  winter  dairying  cannot  be 
made  to  pay;  that  owing  to  the  price  of  feeding  stuffs 
and  the  scarcity  of  labour,  the  receipts  from  butter- 
making  or  the  price  paid  by  creameries  is  unremuner- 
ative;  that  people  are  unwilling  to  pay  a  remunera- 
tive price  for  retail  milk,  and  that  there  is  less  profit 
on  winter  milk  at  3d  a  quart  than  on  summer  milk 

[  184] 


at  2d  a  quart.  The  chief  deterrents,  however,  seem 
to  be  the  alleged  difficulty  of  obtaining  suitable  la- 
bour, and  a  behef,  based  rather  on  tradition  than  on 
actual  experience  of  suitable  modern  methods,  that 
winter  dairying  cannot  be  made  to  pay." 

There  is  a  significance  in  this  traditlonallty  of  the 
farmers  that  goes  beyond  winter  dairying  and  the 
butter  industry.  Whatever  was  accomplished  In  the 
way  of  cooperation,  the  thick  crust  of  custom  re- 
mains unbroken,  and  will  remain  unbroken,  barring 
a  volcanic  eruption  In  Ireland,  until  the  root  of  the 
matter  Is  seized  by  the  statesmanship  of  the  country. 

The    root,    of   course.    Is   purposeful    education. 
The  railways  may  exploit  Ireland  and  emigration 
may  weaken  It,  but  to  deprive  It  of  proper  training 
for  Its  vocations  Is  to  deprive  It  of  the  one  remedial 
principle,    the    qualitative    element    which    corrects 
quantitative    loss.     The    uneducated    citizen    Is    so    j 
handicapped  In  the  modern  community  that  he  Is   I 
confined  to  simple  labor,  the  product  of  primitive  I 
untutored  effort.     Compound  labor  Is  the  opportu-  j 
nity  opened  to  the  educated  citizen.     By  training  he  | 
is  enabled  to  manipulate  more  than  his  personal  re- 
sources, he  Is  enabled  to  coordinate,  to  economize, 
to  simplify.     To  deprive  a  citizen  of  education  Is  to 
deprive  a  community  of  technology.     It  Is  to  keep  It 
backward,  feeble,  subservient.     It  Is  to  send  It  bare- 
handed against  industry's  machine  guns. 

UNEDUCATED 

This  Is  the  condition  of  the  Irish  people.  The  at- 
titude of  the  farmers  toward  winter  dairying  Is  not 
a  national  attitude,  It  Is  a  typical  uneducated  attitude. 
The  Servians  would  take  the  same  attitude  in  the 

[  185  ] 


same  circumstances.  So  would  the  farmers  of  Al- 
bania. In  homogeneous  countries  like  Denmark 
there  was  no  privileged  class  to  use  the  peasants  like 
cattle,  totally  disregarding  their  capabilities.  The 
people  of  Denmark  had  no  absentee  landlords,  no 
bored  and  contemptuous  House  of  Lords.  It  was  a 
commonwealth  in  which  the  Importance  of  education 
was  magnificently  realized  and  universally  applied. 
The  will  of  the  whole  people,  it  Is  true,  promoted 
this  development.  The  people  were  not  a  mere 
anvil  to  the  government's  hammer.  But  the  essen- 
tial lesson  of  Denmark  Is  the  national  education  back 
of  Its  farming.  No  such  farming  is  conceivable 
without  such  a  system  of  education.  The  butter  ef- 
ficiency of  Denmark  is  no  more  the  product  of  Dan- 
ish will-power  churning  superhumanly  than  the  danc- 
ing of  a  trained  Russian  ballet  Is  the  product  of  a 
happy  knack  of  dancing.  There  are  those  who  de- 
cline to  consider  the  mundane  processes  of  character. 
They  believe  that  results  are  achieved  by  being  full 
of  virtue,  that  self-perfection  is  purely  a  matter  of 
taking  thought.  Such  people  can  never  be  convinced 
that  there  Is  a  great  deal  In  character  that  Is  in  no 
sense  "  Innate  ";  that  the  least  said  about  innateness, 
the  soonest  mended;  that  the  thing  to  do  with 
naughtiness  Is  usually  to  give  a  worm-powder;  that 
the  government  which  sees  poverty  and  uneducatlon 
in  a  community  had  better  organize  education  before 
discussing  national  traits.  There  are  limits  even  to 
education,  as  witness  the  supposed  commercial  In- 
adaptability of  the  American  Indian.  But  those 
limits  are  only  to  be  accepted  after  fair  and  ex- 
haustive trial.  To  proclaim  them  beforehand  is  to 
greet  the  devil  with  suspicious  cordiality, 

[  i86  ] 


"  There  is  £35,000,000  worth  of  imported  goods 
that  should  be  produced  in  Ireland,"  said  Mr.  T.  P. 
Gill,  secretary  of  the  department  of  agriculture,  tes- 
tifying before  the  finance  commission  of  191 1,  "in- 
cluding a  large  proportion  of  agricultural  produce, 
such  as  feeding-stuffs,  and  industries  of  a  kind  that 
are  more  or  less  related  to  agriculture." 

Said  Mr.  Plender  to  Mr.  Gill,  with  the  usual 
aplomb  of  the  Englishman,  "  I  suppose  it  is  due  to 
some  extent  to  physical  indolence  on  the  part  of  the 
people,  is  It  not?  " 

"  I  do  not  think  it  could  be  put  in  that  way,"  Mr. 
Gill  answered.  "  The  people  no  doubt,  to  a  very 
great  extent,  have  lost  what  they  once  had  to  a 
greater  extent  —  an  industrial  spirit.  Many  causes 
have  contributed  to  that  —  very  largely  amongst 
those  causes  has  been  the  bad  management  of  the 
country  on  the  part  of  government." 

The  national  ghost  seemed  about  to  walk,  but  Mr. 
Plender  appeased  him.  "  I  asked  that  question 
merely  because  you  stated  that  there  was  nothing 
to  prevent  the  butter  Industry  being  maintained 
throughout  the  year,  but  that  It  was  dropped  during 
the  winter,  and  there  was  evidently  a  lack  of  enter- 
prise which  led  to  foreign  competitors  getting  the  ad- 
vantage of  Ireland  in  the  markets.  The  conclusion 
I  formed  from  that  lack  of  effort  during  the  winter 
was  that  probably  the  people  engaged  in  that  employ- 
ment were  less  Industrious  than  the  people  In  other 
countries." 

The  explanation  of  Inherent  vice  did  not  recom- 
mend Itself  to  Mr.  Gill.  "  That  Is  not  so,"  he  ex- 
plained. "  The  making  of  butter  In  the  winter  Is 
a  modern  thing.     The  whole  system  everywhere  had 

[  187  ] 


been  to  have  butter  made  during  the  summer  months 
of  the  year,  and  then  for  the  supply  to  go  short  in 
the  winter.  The  other  countries,  hke  Denmark  and 
France,  have  in  their  recent  progressive  development 
begun  to  make  butter  all  the  year  round;  but  that  is 
an  improvement  which  they  have  introduced  into 
their  agriculture  only  in  recent  times.  We  have 
not  yet  introduced  that  improvement  into  Ireland, 
but  it  is  one  of  the  thing  we  are  endeavoring  to  do. 
The  fact  that  butter  is  not  made  In  the  winter  is  not 
due  to  laziness  on  the  part  of  the  people,  but  is  due 
to  lack  of  knowledge,  to  a  long-depressed  agricul- 
tural spirit,  and  to  backwardness  in  industrial  devel- 
opment. That  is  one  of  the  things  we  have  to  cor- 
rect, and  it  is  being  steadily  corrected  " 

THE   SHYNESS   OF   CAPITAL 

*'  If  Ireland  had  the  capital  " —  that  Is  a  constant 
refrain  in  this  connection.  Capital  Is  on  the  side 
of  the  big  battalions.  In  recent  years  a  considerable 
number  of  the  Irish  bourgeoisie  —  prospering  farm- 
ers and  traders  —  have  begun  to  invest  In  Irish  rail- 
ways and  industrial  securities,  but  the  entrenched 
wealth  of  Ireland  is  anti-national  and  unionist. 
"  There  never  was  a  Liberal  on  the  board  of  the 
Bank  of  Ireland  in  my  time,"  the  Right  Hon.  Law- 
rence Waldron  of  the  Dublin  Stock  Exchange  told 
the  finance  commission. 

The  Unionists,  as  Mr.  Waldron  made  clear,  "  had 
all  the  land  and  there  was  no  other  property  In  Ire- 
land, because  these  banks  and  other  concerns  grad- 
ually arose  out  of  the  Improvement  of  the  land. 
They   found  themselves   from  historical  causes  in 

[  i88  ] 


possession  of  wealth  and  power,  and  like  everybody 
else,  they  tried  to  retain  it." 

"  They  clung  to  it,  naturally,"  the  Catholic  bishop 
of  Ross  soliloquized. 

"  And  small  blame  to  them,"  confessed  the  stock- 
holder. 

The  stockholder's  attitude  toward  privileged 
wealth  in  Ireland  did  not  keep  him  from  defining  its 
habit  and  Its  habitat. 

"  Historically,"  the  resolute  Nationalist  bishop 
asked  him,  "  that  class  has  come  to  consider  the  gov- 
ernment of  Ireland  as  their  own  peculiar  perqui- 
site?" 

*'  I  quite  agree,"  answered  Mr.  Waldron. 

"  And  the  offices  In  the  country,"  persisted  the 
bishop,  "  and  the  posts  in  the  High  Courts  of  Justice, 
were  all  staffed  with  men  of  that  particular  class?  " 

"  I  quite  agree,"  answered  Mr.  Waldron,  a  little 
uncomfortably. 

"  All  the  government  offices  In  Dublin  and  all  over 
the  country?  "  the  bishop  concluded. 

"  Although  I  agree,"  Mr.  Waldron  at  last  remon- 
strated, "  I  think  It  Is  only  fair  to  say  In  answer  to 
that,  that  they  came  from  a  class  which  for  years 
had  the  government  of  England  In  their  hands.  It 
must  be  admitted  by  a  Nationalist  and  Catholic  like 
myself  that  the  Protestants  were  better  educated; 
and  really,  this  question  roughly  divides  into  Catho- 
lics and  Protestants,  under  whatever  specious  dis- 
guise it  may  be  presented.  But  I  think  Protestants 
have  been  slow  to  notice  the  change  of  conditions; 
like  all  other  classes  in  possession  of  power,  they 
have  clung  to  it,  as,  speaking  for  myself  and  those 
[  189  ] 


who   share  my  views,   I   am   perfectly   certain  we 
should  ourselves  have  done  In  similar  circumstances." 

Did  Mr.  Waldron  mean  the  Catholic  hierarchy 
when  he  spoke  of  "  other  classes  in  possession  of 
power  "  ?  Education,  at  any  rate,  is  a  form  of  capi- 
tal that  Mr.  Waldron  agreed  with  Mr.  Gill  about; 
and  he  left  no  doubt  that  education  still  gave  the 
Unionist  the  huge  preponderance  of  power.  "  The 
management  of  the  great  commercial  concerns  is 
nearly  all  in  the  hands  of  Unionists,  and  so  is  a  great 
proportion  of  the  capital  of  all  the  great  enterprises 
of  Ireland,  the  great  railways  and  the  banks,  other 
than  certain  national  banks  —  the  National,  the 
Munster  and  Leinster,  and  the  Hibernian  Banks, 
which  have  a  majority  of  the  popular  party  I  would 
say;  but  it  is  as  I  say  with  regard  to  all  the  great 
railways  and  the  Bank  of  Ireland,  which  is  the  most 
important  financial  institution  in  Ireland." 

It  is  unnecessary  to  press  this  point  further.  Cap- 
ital is  nervous  and  sensitive.  Capital  is  Unionist. 
"  There  exists  an  old  distrust  of  Ireland,"  wrote  a 
shrewd  Frenchman,  Leonce  de  Lavergne,  in  1855, 
"  not  soon  to  be  eradicated.  .  .  .  [The  English] 
fear  the  revival  of  jacqueries,  and  detest  popery  and 
the  papists.  Ask  an  Englishman  to  invest  his  capital 
in  Ireland,  promising  him  at  the  same  time  a  return 
of  eight  or  ten  per  cent.,  and  it  is  much  the  same  as 
proposing  to  a  Frenchman  to  send  him  to  Africa 
among  the  Arabs."  This  is  not  the  least  part  of 
Ireland's  economic  legacy,  the  legacy  of  husks. 
Burying  the  past  would  be  simpler,  if  the  tepidity  of 
capital  were  not  so  full  of  consequences,  and  if  Ire- 
land were  not  still  so  full  of  hideous  object  lessons. 

[  190  ] 


THE  HUMAN  REFUSE  HEAP 
The  city  of  Dublin  provides  one  hideous  economic 
object-lesson.  With  a  population  of  300,000,  it 
offers  so  little  opportunity  to  enterprise  that  the  vast 
number  of  Dublin  men  cannot  be  included  in  such 
small  manufactures  as  brewing,  distilling,  the  mak- 
ing of  soda  water  or  biscuits.  The  consequence  has 
been  to  convert  this  city  of  hapless  industry  into  a 
viscid  pool  of  unskilled  workers,  casual  workers  and 
non-workers.  Hawkers,  laborers,  porters,  paupers 
and  their  families  numbered  103,081  in  191 1,  with  a 
great  many  unemployed  and  unemployable  included 
in  this  huge  class.  Coachmen,  carpenters  and  van- 
men  numbered  15,380.  With  skilled  workers' 
wages  only  79%  of  London  wages  and  food  107% 
the  price  of  London  food  (excepting  meat),  the  con- 
dition of  the  unskilled  may  be  easily  inferred. 

The  best  way  to  imagine  it  is  to  picture  the  housing 
conditions  of  Dublin.  It  is  an  old  city,  a  fatal  mag- 
net to  the  rural  districts.  Unfortunate  country- 
people  still  crowd  up  to  it.  Finding  the  poorest  kind 
of  casual  labor,  they  swell  the  unemployed  and  the 
unemployable,  coagulating  in  foul  and  unsuitable 
tenements  such  as  disgrace  no  other  city  in  the 
British  Isles.  In  "  houses  unfit  for  human  habita- 
tion and  incapable  of  being  rendered  fit  for  human 
habitation"  there  were,  in  1913,  22,701  persons. 
In  "  houses  which  are  so  decayed  or  so  badly  con- 
structed as  to  be  on  or  fast  approaching  the  border- 
line of  being  unfit  for  human  habitation,"  there  were 
37»552  persons.  And  in  structurally  sound  tene- 
ments there  were  27,052  persons.  The  22,701  per- 
sons first  mentioned  were  crowded  into  15 18  danger- 

[  191  ] 


ous  structures,  anywhere  up  to  12  persons  in  one 
room,  and  in  all  Dublin  20,000  families  out  of  25,- 
000  families  in  tenements  having  no  more  than  one 
room. 


12,296  1 

11,335  1 

8,928  1 

5,978  1 

3,448  1 

3,014  1 

450  1 

176  1 

60  1 


ving  four  in  a  room, 
ving  five  in  a  room, 
ving  six  in  a  room, 
ving  seven  in  a  room, 
ving  eight  in  a  room, 
ving  nine  in  a  room, 
ving  ten  in  a  room, 
ving  eleven  in  a  room, 
ving  twelve  in  a  room. 


Where  6  families  out  of  every  thousand  families 
in  modern  Belfast  live  in  a  single  room,  339  families 
live  this  way  in  Dublin;  and  often  the  entire  family 
sleeps  in  a  single  "  bed."  "  Generally  the  only 
water-supply  of  the  house,"  says  the  government  re- 
port of  1 9 14,  "is  furnished  by  a  single  water  tap 
which  is  in  the  yard.  .  .  .  The  closet  accommoda- 
tion is  common,  as  the  evidence  shows,  not  only  to 
the  occupants  of  the  house,  but  to  anyone  who  likes 
to  come  in  off  the  street,  and  is,  of  course,  common 
to  both  sexes.  Having  visited  a  large  number  of 
these  houses  In  all  parts  of  the  city,  we  have  no  hesi- 
tation In  saying  that  it  Is  no  uncommon  thing  to  find 
halls  and  landings,  yards  and  closets  of  the  houses  In 
a  filthy  condition,  and  In  nearly  every  case  human 
excreta  is  to  be  found  scattered  about  the  yards  and 
on  the  floors  of  the  closets  and  In  some  cases  even 
in  the  passages  of  the  house  Itself.  At  the  same 
time  It  Is  gratifying  to  find  In  a  number  of  instances 
that  in  spite  of  the  many  drawbacks,  an  effort  is  made 
by  the  occupants  to  keep  their  rooms  tidy  and  the 

[  192  ] 


walls  are  often  decorated  with  pictures  and  when 
making  one  of  our  inspections  after  Christmas  we 
frequently  noticed  an  attempt  to  decorate  for  the 
season  of  the  year.  .  .  .  Having  regard  to  the 
above  conditions,  we  are  prepared  to  accept  Sir 
Charles  Cameron's  evidence,  that  the  female  Inhabi- 
tants of  the  tenement  houses  seldom  use  the  closets; 
Indeed  It  would  be  hard  to  believe  otherwise,  as  we 
cannot  conceive  how  any  self-respecting  male  or  fe- 
male could  be  expected  to  use  accommodations  such 
as  we  have  seen." 

The  rental  of  the  tenement  houses  amounts  to 
£191,509  10.  o.  Two-thirds  of  the  families  live  on 
£1  a  week  or  less  —  4,000  earning  not  more  than 
fifteen  shillings. 

In  191 1  over  44^0  of  the  deaths  among  these 
people  occurred  In  workhouses,  hospitals,  asylums 
and  prisons.  The  death-rate  among  children  of  the 
well-to-do  class  In  Dublin  was  .9.  Among  laborers' 
children.  It  was  12.7,  fourteen  times  as  great. 

A  number  of  these  Dublin  workers  took  part  In 
the  insurrection  of  19 16,  well-drilled  and  desperate 
men  under  the  leadership  of  James  Connolly. 
They  had  no  illusion  whatever  that  the  nauseating 
condition  of  Dublin  was  a  fact  of  the  "  dim  past." 
They  knew  that  babies  in  the  slums  of  Dublin  had 
not  half  the  chance  of  cattle.  They  knew  that  In- 
cest and  prostitution  and  syphilis  accompanied  that 
Dublin  slum-life,  a  life  of  Indecencies  so  unmention- 
able that  no  one  can  fully  quote  the  government  re- 
ports. But  when  labor  joined  In  the  Insurrection 
of  19 1 6,  Dublin  capital  represented  by  W.  M. 
Murphy  joined  heartily  in  calling  for  "  justice," 
which  did  not  mean  decency  for  Dublin  but  merely 

[  193  ] 


James  Connolly's  blood.  Dublin  capital  did  not  call 
in  vain.  In  the  fighting  of  Easter  Week,  James 
Connolly  received  a  shattering  leg-wound.  He  was 
condemned  by  a  military  tribunal  for  rising  against 
the  government  of  Ireland,  and  as  soon  as  he  was 
able  to  be  removed  from  the  hospital  to  the  barrack 
yard  he  was  supported  to  a  chair  and  shot. 


[  194  ] 


VII 
THE  POLITICAL  LEGACY 

THE   LAST    FIFTY   YEARS 

For  fifty  years,"  declared  Ernest  Barker  in 
19 1 7,  "both  of  our  parties  —  each  in  its  different 
way,  and  each  according  to  its  different  lights  —  have 
sought  to  do  justice  to  the  grievances  of  Ireland; 
and  here  these  hatreds  of  the  buried  past  lift  their 
menacing  front  and  join  their  hands  with  the  hatred 
of  Germany." 

Mr.  Barker  is  a  fellow  of  New  College,  Oxford, 
and  his  conviction  is  that  of  a  cultivated  liberal.  He 
knows  Ireland's  unhappy  history,  but  he  is  certain 
that  since  1867  England  has  met  Ireland  in  a  new 
spirit.  He  proclaims  the  advent  of  self-government 
for  Irishmen.  He  believes  that  self-government 
even  abov^  good  government  is  the  ideal  of  the 
British  empire,  and  he  welcomes  Ireland  on  the 
threshold  of  the  commonwealth,  the  true  empire: 
"  It  is,  to  all  whose  eyes  are  not  obscured  by  pas- 
sion, a  living  home  of  divine  freedom,  in  which  the 
ends  of  the  earth  are  knit  together  not  for  profit, 
and  not  for  power,  but  in  the  name  and  the  hope  of 
self-government.  Ireland  has  waited  long  —  too 
long,  indeed:  and  yet  the  difficulties  (difficulties, 
many  of  them,  within  her  own  borders)  have  been 
many — for  the  day  of  the  entering  into  the  free- 
dom of  our  common  home.     But  the  day  of  entering 

[  195  ] 


is  at  hand:  dawn  stands  poised  on  the  horizon;  and 
if  there  are  still  some  clouds  in  the  sky,  there  is  also 
light,  and  the  promise  of  light." 

In  this  utterance  Mr.  Barker  shows  goodwill  and 
fine  feeling.  I  believe  the  effect  of  it  on  most  im- 
partial outsiders  would  be  to  persuade  them  that  he 
is  not  only  detached  and  disinterested  but  right.  He 
is  simple  where  Irishmen  are  often  turgid.  He  is 
self-possessed  where  they  are  gusty.  He  is  kind 
where  their  vindictiveness  is  too  usual.  Unless  your 
prepossessions  are  already  different,  Mr.  Barker's 
tone  (even  when  he  speaks  of  Germany  and  starts 
unreasoning  processes)  must  seem  admirable,  and  I 
am  sure  that  the  pamphlet  from  which  I  quote,  Ire- 
land in  the  Last  Fifty  Years  (1866-1916),  steadied 
many  questioning  souls. 

But  suppose  for  a  moment  that  it  strikes  an  Irish- 
man somewhat  as  the  tone  of  open-shop  employers 
strikes  labor.  "  For  fifty  years  we  have  sought  to 
do  justice  to  the  grievances  "  of  labor  and  so  on. 
Every  one  is  not  bewildered,  in  that  case,  when  labor 
brutally  laughs. 

Why  does  an  Irishman  laugh  at  such  sincere  claims 
as  these?  Mr.  Barker  is  honest,  he  is  instructed,  he 
is  liberal.  Where  is  he  at  fault?  I  hope  it  will 
not  be  thought  picayune  if,  before  I  refer  to  his  main 
contention,  I  point  out  an  initial  Britticism,  his  idea 
of  Irish  grievances.  I  must  confess  I  dislike  the 
word  grievances.  Into  it  there  is  compressed  a 
whole  class  attitude,  an  attitude  of  superiority. 
There  is  something  of  the  nursery  and  something  of 
the  servants'  hall  about  this  feudal  word,  which  is 
steeped  in  the  atmosphere  of  complaint.  When  a 
man  seeks  justice  in  court  he  is  undoubtedly  called 

[  196  ] 


either  a  complainant  or  plaintiff,  both  words  preserv- 
ing the  wails  and  whimpers  of  the  subject  classes,  but 
this  terminology  Is  a  wrong  terminology.  What  the 
Irish  have  addressed  to  England  are  accusations  and 
charges,  not  grievances.  They  have  spoken  to  Eng- 
land from  the  vantage  point  of  their  outraged 
rights.  If  might  Is  right,  grievance  is  the  proper 
word  to  apply  to  Ireland's  demand,  but  not  other- 
wise. The  word  grievance  has  the  notion  of  supe- 
rior force  latent  in  it.  It  is  addressed  from  below, 
up.  One  does  not  speak  of  England's  grievances 
against  Andorra.  And  where  rights  are  genuinely 
accepted  the  word  is  inapplicable.  One  scarcely  says 
that  the  Jews  gave  Christ  a  grievance. 

But  there  is  more  in  Mr.  Barker's  tone  than  this 
quite  unconscious  adoption  of  a  self-righteous  word. 
There  Is  his  very  assertion  that  the  English  parties 
have  sought  to  do  justice.  This  kind  of  argument 
is  double-edged.  What  we  must  deal  with,  surely, 
is  what  England  has  done,  not  with  what  she  sought 
to  do.  The  Intentions  of  modern  political  parties 
are  almost  impossible  to  estimate.  If  we  are  to 
believe  Gladstone,  England  was  practically  the  enemy 
of  mankind  under  the  leadership  of  Disraeli;  and 
heaven  knows  what  the  Tories  thought  of  England 
when  they  themselves  were  out  of  power.  It  is  sim- 
pler in  these  matters  to  refrain  from  making  sweep- 
ing claims  that  cannot  possibly  be  substantiated,  and 
to  be  candid  about  ascertained  facts.  If  all  the  facts 
showed  a  steady  good  intention  on  the  part  of  Eng- 
land, Mr.  Barker  should  certainly  claim  it;  but  the 
object  of  such  a  claim  is  to  foreclose  the  whole  Irish 
question.  It  is  to  show  that  justice  Is  obtainable 
under  the  existing  arrangement,  that  it  is  unreason- 

[  197  ] 


able  of  Irishmen  to  press  their  will,  childish  of  them 
to  be  "  lurid,"  wicked  of  them  to  criticize  England 
when  England  Is  at  war.  In  asserting  England's 
justice,  Mr.  Barker  stands  a  chance  of  rallying  opin- 
ion against  the  rebellious  Irishman,  but  only  if  Irish 
testimony  is  not  interposed  to  counter  his  claim,  to 
say  what  is  "  lurid  "  and  what  Is  not  "  lurid,"  to 
remind  the  reader  of  the  actual  conditions  under 
which  England  has  amended  the  state  of  Ireland. 

JUSTICE    UNDER   DURESS 

The  main  Issue  first.  Did  the  home  rule  move- 
ment spring  from  the  desires  of  either  or  both  Eng- 
lish parties  to  do  justice?  Mr.  Barker  has  for- 
gotten that  home  rule  was  introduced  into  English 
politics  by  the  nasty  method  of  forcible  feeding,  with 
Gladstone  brave  enough  to  take  It  easily  but  a  large 
section  of  the  Liberal  party  declaring  and  winning 
a  hunger  strike.  Isaac  Butt,  the  temporizing  leader 
of  Irish  progresslvism,  meekly  offered  the  Issue 
of  home  rule  to  England.  It  was  trampled  under- 
foot. Then  Parnell  arrived,  straight  slim  figure 
outlined  against  the  chiaroscuro  of  famine  and  rebel- 
lion, dynamite,  assassination,  coercion.  What  did 
Parnell  meet  from  Mr.  Barker's  famous  parties? 

"  Few  chapters  of  our  history,"  says  Lord  Morley 
in  his  Recollections,  "  do  us  so  little  honour  as  the 
quarrel  between  England  and  Ireland  In  the  five 
years  from  1880."  In  1885  the  Tories  saw  a  back- 
door opening  away  from  justice.  There  was  great 
hope  among  them  that  Irish  tribalism  would  save 
them  in  1885,  that  "the  extension  of  the  country 
franchise  would  not  be  unfavorable  to  the  landlord 
interest."  In  his  life  of  Gladstone  Lord  Morley 
[  198  ] 


tells  us  to  what  extent  the  "  deep  conservatism  of  the 
peasantry "  was  revealed.  In  Cork  the  Tories 
polled  300  votes  against  nearly  10,000  for  the  Na- 
tionalists. In  Mayo  the  Tories  polled  200  against 
nearly  10,000  for  the  Nationalists.  In  Kildare,  a 
landlord  county,  the  Tory  got  467  against  3169.  In 
Kerry  the  Tory  had  30  against  3,000.  And  in  the 
House  of  Commons  Parnell  commanded  that  famil- 
iar British  weapon,  the  balance  of  power.  "  Hence- 
forth," Mr.  Barker  rather  naively  admits,  "  the  Eng- 
lish party  system  was  always  profoundly  disturbed 
at  all  times  when  neither  of  the  two  great  parties 
had  a  majority  independent  of  the  Irish  vote.  This 
disturbance  had  been  evident  in  1885,  when  the  union 
of  the  Irish  with  the  Conservative  vote  had  over- 
thrown Gladstone:  it  is  still  more  evident  in  1886, 
when  the  union  of  the  Irish  with  the  Liberal  vote 
overthrew  Salisbury,  and  installed  Gladstone  once 
more  In  power  for  a  few  brief  months.  But  the 
ways  of  an  English  party  which  depends  on  the 
Irish  vote  are  generally  hard;  and  Gladstone,  aban- 
doned by  many  of  his  old  supporters,  failed  to  carry 
the  home  rule  bill  of  1886  even  in  the  House  of 
Commons." 

Granting  that  Ireland's  criterion  of  justice  — 
home  rule  —  is  not  necessarily  Mr.  Barker's,  does 
this  process  seem  like  the  process  of  sympathy? 
Everyone  knows  what  brought  the  disestablishment 
of  the  Irish  church  into  "  the  region  of  practical 
politics  " —  Parnell  gave  the  whole  credit  to  a  Fenian 
dynamite  outrage,  and  Gladstone  never  disguised 
that  outrage  had  stimulated  England  Into  action. 
Everyone  knows  what  Parnell's  obstructionism  ac- 
complished.    To  Ignore  these  things,  to  paint  Eng- 

[  199  ] 


land  as  "  seeking  "  to  do  justice  since  1867,  Is  to  mis- 
read history.  You  might  as  well  say  in  1930  that 
the  enfranchisement  of  women  in  19 17  proved  that 
both  parties  had  sought  from  1890  to  do  justice  to 
the  grievances  of  the  suffragettes.  And  there  are 
liberal  Englishmen  who  will  certainly  say  It,  when 
another  *'  dawn  stands  poised  on  the  horizon." 

AMELIORATION 

When  you  sponge  away  this  sentimentality,  there 
Is  more  in  recent  legislation  for  Ireland  than  a  series 
of  galvanic  responses  to  the  shock  of  agitation. 
Many  measures,  Indeed,  were  conciliatory  In  the  Bis- 
marcklan  sense.  They  were  Intended  to  kill  home 
rule  by  kindness.  Even  so,  there  was  a  magnificent 
change  from  the  totally  Indifferent  or  else  hostile 
attitude  which  preceded  the  extension  of  the  fran- 
chise. But  before  analyzing  this  amelioration  one 
must  explain  in  fairness  to  Mr.  Barker  that  his  atti- 
tude toward  Ireland  Is  largely  legalistic.  His  Is 
good  stubborn  pride  of  race.  He  disagrees  with 
Burke  that  there  was  "oppression,"  for  example: 
"  All  this,"  the  plantations  and  the  penal  code,  "  was 
the  result  not  of  any  deliberate  policy  of  oppression, 
but  of  the  prevalence  of  English  law  In  a  country 
where  English  conditions  did  not  hold  good."  To 
speak  of  "  prevalence  "  In  this  fashion  Is  humorless, 
unless  one  takes  a  Germanic  view  of  the  sanction  of 
force.  And  Mr.  Barker  Inclines  to  prove  too  much, 
as  when  he  sees  little  but  nature  In  the  great  famine. 
"  We  can  only  attach  blame  to  natural  causes,  which 
it  Is  futile  to  blame."  "  Between  18 16  and  1843," 
he  says  later,  "  Parliament  had  passed  some  thirty 
Acts  in  favor  of  landlords."     He  does  not  connect 

[  200  ] 


this  evil  record  with  the  famine  to  which  it  so  obvi- 
ously contributed.  Still,  ignoring  such  bias,  the  legis- 
lative accomplishment  that  inspires  Mr.  Barker  is 
not  to  be  disputed,  and  it  is  refreshing  to  turn  to  his 
summary  of  it. 

It  began  with  the  Irish  Church  Act  of  1869,  allo- 
cating £16,000,000  of  assets;  £8,000,000  to  the 
Episcopal  church,  £750,000  to  the  Presbyterians, 
£370,000  to  the  Catholics,  and  the  residual  £7,000,- 
000  to  advance  purchase  money  to  the  church  ten- 
ants, aid  education  and  relieve  distress.  Was  this 
charity?  Certainly  not.  All  of  it  was  Irish  money. 
England  simply  ceased  to  make  a  gift  of  it  to  a 
madly  incongruous  institution.  The  institution  of 
feudal  landlordism,  almost  equally  incongruous,  was 
similarly  dispossessed.  An  Irishman  would  be  a 
churl  who  did  not  recognize  the  substantial  settle- 
ment of  the  landlord  question  and  admire  the  uncom- 
promising terms  in  which  it  was  settled.  Already 
£125,000,000  has  been  paid  to  the  owners  of  Irish 
estates,  £60,000,000  more  being  still  required  before 
the  last  of  tenants'  land  will  be  relinquished  by  land- 
lords. What  was  once  paid  as  rent  Is  now  paid  to 
the  government  as  an  Instalment  on  purchase  money: 
and  within  seventy  years,  by  this  exercise  of  state 
credit  the  common  people  of  Ireland  will.  If  the  act 
goes  undisturbed,  be  once  more  owners  of  Irish  soil. 
At  the  same  time,  superlative  as  the  benefit  of  this 
legislation  Is  proving.  It  Is  historically  Inaccurate  to 
regard  It  as  having  sprung  In  full  dress  clothes  out 
of  a  British  sense  of  justice.  Decades  before  the 
Idea  was  tolerated  by  Britons  at  large.  It  was  pas- 
sionately urged  by  Irishmen,  sometimes  by  reformers 
like  George  Moore's  father,  sometimes  by  wild  men 

[  201  ] 


like  James  Fintan  Lalor.  Cobden  and  Bright  and 
Mill  received  slim  encouragement  from  the  English 
parties  to  go  to  the  root  of  Irish  distress.  When 
the  issue  was  joined  the  junkers  fought  hard  and 
ruthlessly.  Legislation  came  after  a  cruel  and 
bloody  struggle,  practically  a  revolution,  with  whole- 
sale evictions  going  before  it  and  coercion  throttling 
the  agitation  whenever  it  disturbed  the  existing  order. 
British  statesmen  sipped  at  their  dosage  reluctantly. 
The  acts  of  1870,  1881,  1885,  1891,  1896,  1903, 
1906,  1907,  1909,  do  not  suggest  one  heroic  gulp. 
Now  that  the  potion  is  down,  however,  there  is  an 
Etonian  pride  in  the  manfulness  of  the  achievement, 
and  the  men  who  proffered  the  medicine  are  forgot- 
ten. It  is  a  matter  of  no  great  importance,  but  be- 
fore Englishmen  arrogate  to  themselves  the  credit 
for  Irish  reforms,  It  would  be  wise  of  them  to  follow 
a  noble  example  In  acknowledging  who  Initiated 
Irish  reforms.  "  Without  a  single  exception,  so  far 
as  I  know,"  said  the  Marquess  of  Crewe  In  19 13, 
"  the  various  benefits  conferred  upon  Ireland  by  the 
Imperial  parliament  during  the  last  half-century  have 
all  formed  part  of  the  nationalist  programme  and 
the  nationalist  propaganda." 

Mr.  Arthur  Balfour's  scheme  for  remedying  the 
economic  tuberculosis  of  the  west  of  Ireland  was  a 
good  scheme,  even  though  the  condition  was  a  dis- 
grace to  England  the  world  over,  and  had  certainly 
been  unspeakably  neglected  down  to  1891.  Similarly 
useful  have  been  the  acts  for  laborers'  cottages  and 
town  tenants  and  evicted  tenants'  reinstatement  and 
government  credit  to  the  occupiers  of  new  holdings. 
These  acts  have  not  given  Ireland  agricultural 
welfare,  but,  with  the  upper  house  bullied  into  ac- 

[  202  ] 


quiescence,  they  did  clean  up  purulent  landlordism. 

But  out  of  Westminster  came  more  than  this. 
Besides  seteral  futile  efforts  to  have  the  home  rule 
baby  there  was  a  useful  local  government  act  in 
1898,  deposing  the  landlords  and  establishing  elec- 
tive rural  and  county  councils.  This  occurred,  It 
must  be  said,  after  twelve  local  government  bills  had 
been  killed  from  1836  to  1893,  with  four  others 
stillborn.  In  1899,  thanks  to  Sir  Horace  Plunkett's 
zeal,  came  the  department  of  agriculture  and  techni- 
cal Instruction.  The  broader  Issue  of  higher  educa- 
tion remained.  It  was  tackled  in  1908  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  national  university  (Dublin,  Cork, 
Galway)  and  a  local  university  at  Belfast.  In  1908 
old  age  pensions  were  enacted  for  Ireland.  With 
the  parliament  act  twilight  descended  on  the  Lords 
and  in  19 14,  though  one  might  not  believe  it,  home 
rule  became  law,  after  the  Lords  were  induced  to 
their  "  twilight  sleep." 

This  is  a  handsome  record.  What  have  the  Irish 
to  complain  about?  No  wonder  Mr.  Barker  be- 
lieves that  Irish  criticism  is  lurid,  that  the  country 
"  doesn't  know  what  It  wants,"  as  Punch  said,  "  and 
won't  be  happy  till  It  gets  It." 

But  it  Is  too  easy  to  run  away  with  the  idea  that 
state  grants  to  Ireland  are  exceptional  charity,  that 
Ireland  is  a  drain  on  the  empire  strongly  and  silently 
suffered,  that  there  is  nothing  more  in  reason  to  be 
done.  Everything  depends,  of  course,  where  your 
observation  Is  taken  from.  To  the  crated  Malay 
prisoner,  a  cell  In  Sing  Sing  would  be  paradise.  To 
the  Sing  Sing  convict,  the  bare  liberty  to  roam  In 
Ireland  would  be  joy.  I  am  not  viewing  Ireland  as 
a  suppliant,  or  Its  freedom  as  a  remittance  of  pun- 

[  203  ] 


ishments.  I  am  taking  Mr.  Barker's  own  concep- 
tion, "  a  living  home  of  divine  freedom,"  with  the 
power  of  self-determination  fairly  devised  for  Irish- 
men, and  unequal  burdens  removed.  It  is  only  from 
this  standpoint  of  the  freeman  that  any  state  can  be 
judged,  unless  one  is  frankly  a  tory.  "  It  is  our 
custom  in  Ireland,"  Mr.  Bernard  Shaw  has  cheerily 
confessed,  "  to  denounce  grievances  which  we  share 
with  all  modern  nations  as  Intolerable  and  special 
outrages  unknown  beyond  our  shores  and  abhorrent 
to  God  and  man."  Englishmen  relish  this  sort  of 
general  confession,  but  they  forget  both  the  pre- 
tensions of  their  own  country  and  the  hard  com- 
parative facts. 

The  bald  Issue  of  state  aid  Is  Itself  too  readily 
misunderstood.  When  Mr.  T.  P.  Gill  appeared 
before  the  committee  on  Irish  finance  in  191 1  he 
freely  acknowledged  the  grants  for  agricultural  In- 
struction, but  he  showed  how  similar  grants  were  the 
custom  elsewhere,  and  how  rapidly  they  increased; 
In  Holland  from  £56,000  In  1894  to  £262,000  In 
191 1 ;  In  B*elglum  from  £112,000  to  £224,000;  in 
Switzerland  from  £150,000  to  £219,000;  In  Hun- 
gary from  £1,700,000  to  £2,451,000;  and  in  Den- 
mark from  £108,000  to  £232,000.  In  Ireland  the 
grants  for  technical  instruction  increased  from  £io,- 
000  to  £57,000  In  the  same  period.  These  figures 
are  suggestive  In  themselves;  their  main  Import  Is 
the  unexceptional  character  of  most  Irish  appropri- 
ations. 

GALL   AND   WORMVi^OOD 
The  Ireland  that  Mr.  Barker  has  written  about 
from  the  calm  of  Oxford  appears  In  a  very  different 
[  204  ] 


light  to  the  common  Irish,  the  disadvantaged  ma- 
jority. It  Is  not  only  the  pernicious  anaemia  of  their 
population  that  afflicts  them  —  the  death  rate  high, 
the  birth  rate  on  the  level  of  France  before  the 
war.  They  have  other  disabilities  besides  disabili- 
ties of  public  education  and  commercial  opportunity, 
unnational  banking  and  railway  management,  bad 
housing  In  the  municipalities  and  a  generally  shriv- 
elled civic  life.  Despite  all  the  work  of  liberalism 
in  England,  the  anclen  regime  of  Ireland  is  still 
twined  Into  the  state  establishments.  It  is  curled 
into  the  judiciary  like  a  tropical  germ.  It  has  its 
tentacles  In  every  nook  of  the  Castle,  living  on  large 
emoluments  at  the  expense  of  popular  need.  The 
resident  magistrates  give  one  choice  example  of  its 
tradition,  the  royal  Irish  constabulary  give  another. 
There  is  not  only  uneconomic  organization  in  many 
departments  of  government,  there  is  petty  favorit- 
ism and  anti-nationalism  extending  into  civil  life. 
The  ofHcers  of  the  government  do  not,  as  a  rule, 
regard  themselves  as  servants  of  the  people.  They 
regard  themselves  as  outside  and  above  the  aborig- 
ines, and  they  exhibit  and  nourish  the  aspect  of  a 
caste.  This  peculiarity  of  English  government  in 
Ireland  has  been  responsible  for  a  great  part  of  the 
misunderstanding  between  England  and  Ireland.  At 
every  turn  the  governmental  caste  reminds  Ireland 
of  its  history,  the  terms  of  its  conquest,  the  perpetu- 
ation of  that  conquest.  Nothing,  not  the  police  or 
the  judiciary  or  the  land  commission  or  the  local 
government  board  or  the  board  of  education  or  the 
centralized  charities  or  the  civil  service,  is  free  from 
the  caste  implication.  It  goes  out  beyond  govern- 
ment, of  course.     The  garrison  has  its  own  clubs, 

[  205  ] 


Its  own  games,  its  newspapers,  Its  doctors,  Its  Ivied 
walls  of  ignorance  and  self-sufficiency;  and  the  na- 
tives who  pass  those  walls  leave  nationalism  outside. 
Here  you  have  the  gall  and  wormwood  of  Ireland's 
conquest,  surviving  the  land  laws  and  the  congested 
district  board  and  the  beneficent  legislation  of  Eng- 
land. Here  is  one  reason  why  ambition  emigrates 
and  despair  sits  heavily  at  home. 

THE  BAULKED  DISPOSITION 
The  American  can  scarcely  understand  these  Impu- 
tations. They  sound  like  the  obscuring  passion  of 
which  Mr.  Barker  speaks.  A  Jew,  perhaps,  would 
understand.  When  the  Jew  cries  aloud  of  his  "  two 
thousand  years  of  exile,"  he  is  thinking  not  only  of 
Zion  but  of  the  ghetto,  the  exclusion  that  Is  the  seal 
of  exile.  But  the  American  does  not  know  what  it 
is  to  have  the  offices  of  government  inaccessible  to  a 
majority  of  his  people,  because  of  their  nationalism 
and  race  and  religion.  He  Is  inclined  to  believe  that 
such  accusations  come  more  from  unrepleted  office- 
seekers  than  from  excluded  groups  and  classes,  and 
it  is  difficult  for  him  even  to  grasp  the  realities  of 
such  genuinely  excluded  minorities  as  his  own  I.  W. 
W.  Though  he  accepts  the  Idea  of  home  rule,  the 
status  of  the  Irish  people  Is  not  clear  to  him.  He  Is 
content  to  favor  home  rule  on  the  rough  principle 
of  self-government. 

But  the  main  reason  that  self-government  Is  Imper- 
ative Is  the  impossibility  of  good  government  with- 
out it,  if  by  government  one  means  something  more 
than  law  and  order.  The  discontentment,  subtle  and 
poisonous,  which  ferments  In  men  who  are  less  than 
full  men   in  their   own   community,   may  properly 

[  206  ] 


be  ascribed  to  what  Mr.  Graham  Wallas  terms 
"  baulked  disposition."  It  is  easy,  at  this  point,  to 
provoke  the  sarcasm  of  a  man  like  Mr.  Balfour, 
with  his  sharp  references  to  "  the  appetite  for  self- 
assertion."  It  is  always  easy  to  cast  doubt  on  the 
aspiration  of  other  men  to  govern  themselves,  to  see 
in  their  restlessness  a  kicking  against  the  pricks  of 
duty  and  conscience.  But  so  long  as  men  are  insti- 
tutionally handicapped  the  fact  of  their  unhappiness 
is  eloquent.  The  very  existence  of  an  obscuring  pas- 
sion in  Irishmen  is,  at  the  least,  a  sign  that  their 
conditions  of  government  had  better  be  scrutinized. 
It  would  be  sentimental  to  say  in  advance  that  the 
only  remedy  possible  is  more  self-government.  It  Is 
enough  at  the  moment  to  search  for  the  political 
grounds  of  this  baulked  disposition,  not  to  propose 
its  remedy. 

The  accusatory  note  Is  struck  by  an  Englishman. 
Speaking  in  19 13  In  the  House  of  Lords,  close  to  the 
end  of  Mr.  Barker's  fifty  remedial  years,  Lord  Mor- 
ley  undertook  to  characterize  the  governance  of  Ire- 
land. "  I  submit  this  to  your  Lordships,"  said  this 
statesman  of  thirty  years'  Irish  experience  and  fifty 
years'  thinking  on  Ireland.  "  I  have  no  desire  to 
figure  as  an  oracle  of  political  wisdom,  but  there  is 
nothing  worse  In  the  whole  range  of  the  political 
system  than  Irresponsible  power.  Any  one  who  has 
thought  at  all  about  these  things  In  theory  or  ob- 
served them  In  practice  will  cheerfully  admit  that. 
The  whole  administrative  system  of  Ireland  is  sealed, 
stamped  and  branded  with  irresponsibility  from  top 
to  bottom,  and  my  noble  friend  Lord  Crewe  did  not 
go  a  bit  too  far  when  he  said,  speaking  from  his  own 
experience,  which  is  very  much  mine,  that  it  was 

[  207  ] 


really  Crown  Colony  Government  masked  and  dis- 
guised." These  are  strong  words,  uttered  by  a  man 
who  weighs  his  words.  They  are  worthy  to  be  the 
epitaph  of  the  union. 

The  keynote  of  English  administration  in  Ireland 
is  one  principle  —  distrust.  Where  the  government 
is  in  the  hands  of  a  free  people,  administration  may 
also  be  distrustful.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  a  popu- 
lace to  ask  miracles  of  the  governors  and  of  gov- 
ernors to  regard  the  populace  as  objects.  But  in 
Ireland  the  government  has  made  administration  in 
the  spirit  and  image  of  distrust.  Since  the  coming 
of  Parnell  the  Irish  bureaucracy  has  lost  much  of  its 
close  semblance  to  the  bureaucracy  of  Russia:  its  im- 
pervious judiciary,  its  Cossacks,  its  secret  service,  its 
pogroms.  The  espousal  of  Ireland  by  Gladstone 
brought  about  a  sufficient  change  in  serfdom  to  end 
the  unchecked  tyranny  of  the  bureaucrats.  But  the 
Institution  of  those  tyrants,  their  tortuous  mechan- 
ism, remains.  Ireland  has  left  its  cell,  it  still  wears 
handcuffs.  Those  handcuffs  keep  its  history  alive. 
It  has  no  freedom  to  spend  its  own  money,  to  invest 
its  own  capital,  to  promote  its  own  capital,  to  pro- 
mote its  own  welfare.  It  has  no  freedom  to  unmake 
the  administrator  who  does  not  suit  it,  or  to  advance 
the  administrator  who  does.  At  every  movement  or 
gesture,  distrust  intervenes  and  represses  Ireland. 
Distrust  is  the  true  king  of  Ireland. 

The  nominal  ruler  is  the  lord  lieutenant,  but  the 
real  ruler,  the  lord  of  misrule,  is  the  chief  secretary. 
He  is  the  man  who  carries  Irish  administration  under 
his  hat.  Through  the  bureaucracy  of  Dublin  Castle, 
in  some  measure  responsive  to  his  bidding,  he  man- 
ages the  people  of  Ireland.     He  is  always,  of  course, 

[  208  ] 


an  Englishman  or  a  Scotchman.  In  most  cases  he 
has  been  actively  anti-nationalist.  Where  he  has 
wished  to  respond  to  the  people,  the  machinery  has 
greatly  handicapped  him.  But  with  brilliant  and 
wholly  admirable  exceptions  he  has  been  content  to 
accept  a  "  wasteful,  inefficient  and  demoralising 
system." 

We  have  heard  from  several  secretaries  what  it 
was  like  to  sponsor  Irish  policy  in  a  British  cabinet 
—  crying  "  Ireland,"  "  Ireland,"  like  a  magpie. 
The  Irish  secretary  has  ever  been  a  witch-doctor,  a 
nuisance  or  a  bore.  While  his  colleagues  have  en- 
dured him  and  the  Irish  members  at  times  cooper- 
ated with  him,  the  task  of  being  responsible  for  all 
the  boards  that  govern  Ireland  has  been  like  a  buf- 
foon's attempt  to  carry  forty  Christmas  packages. 
The  effort  that  has  saved  one  has  spilled  another. 
Besides  such  obvious  tasks  as  running  his  own  office, 
the  chief  secretary  has  to  be  the  deity  of  the  local 
government  board,  the  congested  districts  board,  the 
royal  Irish  constabulary,  the  land  commission,  the 
department  of  agriculture  and  technical  Instruction, 
the  estates  commissioners,  the  board  of  national  edu- 
cation, the  board  of  intermediate  education.  There 
are,  besides,  the  registrar  of  petty  sessions  clerks, 
the  general  prisons  board,  the  office  of  Inspectors  of 
lunatic  asylums,  the  Dublin  metropolitan  police,  the 
office  of  reformatory  and  industrial  schools,  the  pub- 
lic loan  fund  board,  the  registrar-general's  office,  the 
establishment  of  charitable  donations  and  bequests. 
These  are  only  a  few  of  the  twenty-six  boards  which, 
as  Mr.  G.  F.-H.  Berkeley  summarizes  them,  are 
directly  under  the  influence  of  the  Castle,  with  sal- 
aries ranging  from  £45,000  for  the  lord  lieutenant's 

[  209  ] 


household,  £28,000  for  the  chief  secretary's,  £67,000 
for  the  local  government  board,  down  to  innumer- 
able clerkships  at  £80.  There  are  Irish  branches  of 
the  English  board  of  trade,  stationery  office,  civil 
service  commission,  post  office,  and  so  on,  with  sub- 
offices  of  the  treasury,  all  of  them  irresponsible  and 
most  of  them  unnational  or  anti-national. 

Lord  Morley  spelled  out  the  meaning  of  Dublin 
Castle  to  his  noble  and  learned  friends,  on  and  off 
the  woolsack.  "  The  chief  secretary,  the  responsible 
minister  in  parliament,  has  to  be  most  part  of  his 
time  now,  when  sessions  last  from  January  to  De- 
cember, in  London.  How  can  he  exercise  direct 
supervision  and  control  over  his  departments,  and 
how  can  the  departments  keep  themselves  in  touch 
with  their  chief,  or,  for  that  matter,  with  opinion  in 
Ireland?  What  responsibility  is  there  for  finance 
in  the  Irish  secretary?  It  is  in  the  hands  of  the 
board  of  works,  which  is  the  British  Treasury;  and 
I  would  perfectly  confidently  appeal  to  any  noble 
lord  from  Ireland,  whether  he  comes  from  Ulster  or 
elsewhere,  whether  there  is  any  sense  of  responsi- 
bility for  treasury  money  either  in  his  own  order  or 
amongst  humbler  people.  I  confess  I  wish  there 
was  a  little  more  sense  of  responsibility  for  the  qx- 
penditure  of  public  funds  even  in  this  country. 
There  are  those  who  find  us  here  somewhat  slack, 
and  lavish  in  expenditure,  but  In  Ireland  there  is  not 
a  spark  of  sensibility  for  the  British  treasury.  It  is 
a  point  of  honor  almost,  if  British  Treasury  money 
is  going,  to  get  as  much  as  possible  and  on  no  account 
to  let  one  single  banknote  or  coin  be  given  up.  The 
result,  of  course.  Is  wholly  bad.  Irresponsible  power 
breeds  irresponsible  people."     And  he  adds,  "  Who 

[  2IO  ] 


IS  most  likely  to  take  the  right  measure  of  the  re- 
sources of  Ireland  —  the  treasury  here  or  people  In 
Ireland?  .  .  .  You  want  somebody  In  Ireland  feel- 
ing the  whole  atmosphere  of  Ireland  around  them." 

IRELAND   ON    PAROLE 

This  Is  part  of  the  colonists'  crushing  mortgage 
on  Ireland.  It  may  seem  small  to  Indict  England 
for  setting  aside  £45,000  of  Irish  money  for  the 
household  of  the  lord  lieutenant  —  much  more  than 
is  given  to  the  President  of  the  United  States.  But 
that  is  only  one  dropsical  appropriation.  The  sal- 
aries of  the  Irish  judiciary  are  scandalously  large, 
the  lord  chancellor  absorbing  £6,000  a  year,  the  lord 
chief  justice  £5,000,  the  lords  justices  £4,000  each, 
the  justices  £3,500,  and  judicial  commissioners  of 
the  land  commission  £3,500  and  £3,000,  the  re- 
corder £2,500,  the  county  court  judges  £1,400  each. 
It  may  be  that  the  Irish  "  like  good  law  better  than 
cheap  law,"  but  a  reactionary  judge  is  dear  at  any 
price  and  appointments  are  still  dealt  out  as  fat  re- 
wards to  men  of  the  right  politics  In  Ireland.  Legal 
talent  puts  on  its  incorruption  at  too  great  an  expense 
to  the  public.  The  royal  Irish  constabulary  is  an- 
other monstrosity.  It  costs  the  Irish  people  £1,500,- 
000  a  year.  "  The  constabulary,"  says  a  perma- 
nent under-secretary  for  Ireland,  "  is  really  an  Impe- 
rial force;  it  is  employed  not  merely  for  the  purposes 
of  preserving  the  public  peace,  but  for  the  mainte- 
nance of  civil  government  in  Ireland  in  its  existing 
form.  It  is  a  semi-military  force,  and  It  may  be 
almost  considered  as  an  army  of  occupation  rather 
than  as  a  police  force."  Useful  duties  are  per- 
formed by  the  underworked  police,  such  as  collect- 

[  211  ] 


ing  data  for  the  Inland  revenue  office,  the  registrar- 
general's  office,  the  census  office;  but  the  force  is  op- 
pressive socially  as  well  as  financially.  Nothing  in 
England's  system  of  governing  Ireland  has  given  the 
lie  to  goodwill  so  completely  as  this  standing  army. 
All  through  the  country  the  poorhouses  and  the  police 
barracks  compete  with  each  other  as  monuments  to 
British  government.  Considering  their  function  the 
constables  are  remarkably  kind  and  human,  but  they 
offer  an  insuperable  obstacle  to  Irish  confidence  in 
England.  Their  presence  indicates  to  Ireland  that 
England's  dagger  is  always  hanging  at  its  hand, 
ready  to  be  unsheathed  tomorrow  as  it  was  un- 
sheathed yesterday,  a  perpetual  intimidation  and  a 
perpetual  goad.  I  do  not  mean  that  the  constabu- 
lary is  truculent.  If  there  were  any  excuse  for  it 
there  would  be  every  excuse  for  it.  Its  offence  is 
not  its  conduct  but  its  existence.  It  proclaims  that 
the  whole  Irish  nation  is  simply  on  parole.  There 
is  absolutely  nothing  in  Ireland's  criminal  statistics 
to  justify  this  situation.  The  police  is  a  political 
police,  "  for  the  maintenance  of  civil  government  in 
Ireland  in  its  existing  form." 

THE    OLD    GUARD 

But  the  parole  is  not  confined  to  the  police. 
When  Lord  Morley  went  to  Ireland  the  second  time, 
in  1892,  he  confronted  "the  paradox  of  a  magis- 
tracy mainly  Protestant  in  a  country  predominantly 
Catholic."  Shrewdly  protecting  himself  from  his 
nationalist  advisers,  he  began  appointing  Catholic 
magistrates.  "We  appointed  637  county  justices 
over  the  heads  of  the  lieutenants  of  counties:  554  of 
them  Catholics,  83  Protestants.     But  consider  the 

[  212  ] 


state  of  things  after  our  felonious  operation  was 
over.  We  reduced  the  old  Protestant  ascendancy 
from  between  3  and  4  to  i,  to  a  proportion  of  rather 
more  than  2  to  i.  Add  that  the  majority  of  2  to  i 
on  the  bench  represents  a  minority  of  i  to  3  in  popu- 
lation. For  this  we  were  severely  criticized  as  intro- 
ducing the  poison  germ  of  the  spoils  system  into  the 
virgin  purity  of  Irish  public  life." 

Now  we  begin  to  close  in  on  the  realities  of  Ire- 
land. Remembering  that  Catholic  means  autoctho- 
nous  and  Protestant  means  colonist,  (though  the 
colonist  is  sometimes  the  better  democrat  and  the 
better  nationalist) ,  we  find  that  the  governing  class 
still  rides  its  fences  carefully,  and  mends  its  pali- 
sades. Between  English  and  Irish,  in  Mr.  Balfour's 
view,  "there  is  no  sharp  division  of  race  at  all"; 
but  before  accepting  this  bland  utterance,  it  Is  well 
to  look  at  the  south  of  Ireland  In  the  year  1914,  and 
make  one's  own  Inferences. 

On  July  19-20,  1 9 14,  'two  quarterly  meetings 
were  held  in  Kilkenny  —  one  a  meeting  of  the  county 
United  Irish  League,  the  other  a  meeting  of  the 
county  grand  jury.  Side  by  side,  the  first  twenty 
names  of  each  list  Is  worth  contrasting,  to  see  the 
difference,  if  any,  between  the  men  selected  as  dele- 
gates by  a  home  organization,  and  the  men  selected 
by  a  foreign  government.  They  were  selected  from 
over  exactly  the  same  area,  at  the  same  time,  and 
with  the  idea  of  representation  in  mind: 

United  Irish 

League  Grand  Jury 

Henry  J.  Meagher  Richard  Henry  Prior  Wandesforde 
Thomas  Long  Edward  K.  B.  Tighe 

John  Bryan  Major  James  H.  Connellan 

[  213  ] 


United  Irish 
League 
Richard  Nolan 
Peter  Barret 
Nicholas  Maher 
Thomas  Lyster 
P.   Lennon 
John  Walton 
Richard  Kerwin 
Richard  Kinahan 
Andrew  Dillon 
James  Murphy 
Daniel  Roberts 
Edward  Corr 
Denis  Lennon 
Nicholas  Cruit 
Thomas  Lambert 
John  Bugg}' 
Patrick  Wall 


Grand  Jury 

Gen'l  Sir  Hugh  McCalmont 

Major  Robert  T.  H.  Hanford 

Raymond  de  la  Poer 

Stanislaus  T.  Eyre 

Lieut.   Col.   Walter  Lindsay 

Sir  William   Blunden 

Col.   Charles   Butler-Kearney 

Mervyn   de   Montmorency 

Major  Lindesey  Knox 

John   Butler 

John  T.  Seigne 

Capt.  John  de  Montmorency 

Major  John  J.  E.   Poe 

Charles  S.  Purdon,  M.D. 

William  T.  Pilsworth 

Paul  Hunt 

James  Smithwick 


Among  the  United  Irish  Leaguers  the  ethnologist 
will  undoubtedly  see  a  large  proportion  of  Anglic 
names.  Kilkenny  is  an  Anglicized  county.  But  the 
distinction  is  not  ethnological,  it  is  social.  On  the 
one  side  is  the  Catholic,  the  bourgeois,  and  the 
farmer,  on  the  other  side  is  the  Protestant,  the  petty 
aristocrat  and  the  landowner.  Four  Catholics  had 
penetrated  into  the  grand  jury  in  19 14.  The  Cath- 
olics are  95%  in  Kilkenny.  Not  more  than  one 
Protestant  has  penetrated  Into  the  United  Irish 
League.  The  compartments  are  almost,  though  not 
absolutely,  water-tight. 

But  it  Is  better  to  supplement  this  Illustration  of 
caste  rigidity  from  a  national  board.  At  the  risk 
of  boring  the  reader  I  give  the  contrast  In  the  same 
year  between  the  popularly-selected  chairmen  of  the 

[  214  ] 


county  councils  In  Catholic  Ireland,  and  the  oligarchic 
custodes  rotulorum  or  deputy  lieutenants : 


County  Council 
W.  McM.  Kavanagh 
P.  J.  O'Neill 
Matthew  J.  Mfnch 
John  Butler 
John  Dooly 
John    Phillips 
Peter  Hughes 
Thomas  Halligan 
Patrick  A.  Meehan 
Joseph  P.  O'Dowdall 
John  Bolger 
Edward  P.  Kelly 
James  O'Regan 
William   M.   Donald 
D.  M.  Moriarty 
W.  R.  Gubbins 
Michael  Slattery 
Patrick  O'Gorman 
Thomas  G.  Griffin 
Thomas  Fallon 
James  McGarry 
John   FitzGibbon 
John  O'Dowd 


Lieutenants 
Lord  Rathdonnel 
Earl  of  Meath 
Sir  A.  Weldon 
Marquess  of  Ormonde 
Earl  of  Rosse 
Earl  of  Longford 
Sir  H.  Bellingham 
Sir  N.  T.  Everard 
Sir   Algernon    Coote 
Lord   Castlemaine 
Viscount  Stopford 
Viscount  Powerscourt 
Sir  Michael  O'Loghlen 
Earl  of  Bandon 
Earl  of  Kenmare 
Earl  of  Dunraven 
Lord  Dunalley 
Count  de  la  Poer 
Lord  Clonbrock 
Lord  Harlech 
Earl  of  Lucan 
The  O'Conor  Don 
Major  Charles  Kean  O'Hara 


These  lists  mark  with  tolerable  clearness  the  lusty 
survival  of  a  distinct  Anglo-Irish  class  in  Ireland. 
The  men  chosen  by  the  people  are  of  the  people. 
They  could  not  say,  as  the  Earl  of  Wicklow  had 
just  said,  "  We  are  very  proud  of  being  Irishmen, 
but  we  are,  I  think,  immeasurably  more  proud  of 
being  able  also  to  call  ourselves  English,  or  perhaps 
I  ought  to  say  British."  They  could  not  say,  with 
the  same  gentleman,  "  We  are  not  ashamed  to  be 

[215] 


called  the  English  garrison  In  Ireland.  There  have 
been  English  garrisons  In  many  parts  of  the  world, 
and  I  do  not  know  that  any  member  of  such  a  gar- 
rison ever  had  cause  to  feel  anything  but  proud  of 
his  position."  These  Murphys  and  Dillons  and 
Lennons  and  Nolans  were  the  garrisoned  rather  than 
the  garrison,  so  far  as  full  political  freedom  Is  con- 
cerned. 

THE   GARRISONED 

The  point  is  not  a  legal  one,  exactly.  Even  If 
there  are  fifty  hired  governmental  magistrates  in 
Ireland,  even  if  the  clerks  of  the  crown  and  peace 
are  usually  In  ascendancy,  even  If  juries  In  crucial 
times  have  been  packed,  the  real  disadvantage  Is  not 
so  Immediately  tangible.  The  real  disadvantage  is 
the  affirmation  of  ascendancy,  the  social  and  politi- 
cal barrage.  Nothing  Is  more  precious  in  society 
than  the  free  play  of  personality,  the  right  of  un- 
guarded being  and  doing.  There  Is  not  a  county  in 
Ireland  where  the  inferiority  of  native  Irishmen  is 
not  protested  by  some  instrument  of  the  ascendancy, 
whether  It  Is  their  magisterial  office  or  their  asser- 
tion of  Engllshness  or  their  eight-foot  stone  walls. 
Canon  Hannay  wrote  in  191 1  that  this  embittered 
feeling  is  going.  "  I  left  the  English  schools  at 
which  I  received  the  earlier  part  of  my  education 
when  I  was  seventeen,"  he  says.  "  Since  then  I  have 
lived  entirely  In  Ireland  —  In  the  north.  In  Dublin, 
and  in  the  west.  I  can  look  back  on  twenty-eight 
years  during  which  I  have  been  familiar  with  Irish 
social  life.  I  have  seen  a  great  change  take  place. 
When  I  was  a  young  man  Intercourse  between  Irish 
Protestants  and  Irish  Roman  Catholics  was  rare  in 

[  216] 


every  rank  of  society.  We  lived  apart  from  each 
other.  We  very  seldom  met.  We  never  talked 
about  anything  that  mattered.  This  condition  of 
things  has  absolutely  passed  away.  There  is  now 
far  freer  intercourse,  far  more  social  intermingling 
in  all  classes.  We  are  beginning  to  know  each  other. 
This  change  has  taken  place  in  spite  of  the  warnings 
and  exhortations  of  the  clergy  of  all  kinds.  From 
their  own  point  of  view  the  clergy  were  right  in  their 
objection  to  the  gradual  breaking  down  of  the  wall 
of  division.  The  inevitable  happened.  Young  men 
and  young  women  who  danced  together,  played  to- 
gether, perhaps  debated  together,  came  to  want  to 
marry  each  other.     Then  the  trouble  began." 

Canon  Hannay  knows  Ireland  too  well  not  to  be 
quoted  and  I  regret  I  cannot  agree  with  him.  The 
political  incrustations  of  ascendancy  are  tough  incrus- 
tations, the  rewards  of  ascendancy  are  still  positive. 
One  reason  of  this  is  not  so  much  the  unionism  of 
Irishmen  as  the  unionism  of  Englishmen,  and  the 
doctrine  of  military  necessity. 

DIRA   NECESSITAS 

It  has  never  been  a  secret  in  militarist  circles  that 
home  rule  is  undesirable.  If  the  foible  of  national- 
ists is  chewing  the  bitter  past,  they  share  it  with  Lord 
Ellenborough  and  Earl  Percy  and  even  the  unmili- 
tant  elect  of  the  Round  Table.  The  "  ruinous  heri- 
tage of  ancient  wrong  "  is  deplored  by  The  Common- 
wealth of  Nations,  but  one  of  its  appendices  is  that 
strange  document  in  separatism,  Wolfe  Tone's 
pamphlet  advocating  Irish  neutrality  in  1790.  This 
foolish  preoccupation  with  Ireland's  military  position 
is  not  confined  to  the  hunters  of  political  linseed  bags, 

[  217  ] 


Lord  Ellenborough  avowed  in  19 13  that  there  would 
be  no  difficulty  about  giving  Ireland  home  rule  if 
Ireland  were  thousands  of  miles  away.  "  Even  if 
the  Irish  government  remained  loyal,"  this  states- 
man ventured,  "  there  would  be  the  disadvantage  of 
a  divided  authority,  or  of  having  two  civil  govern- 
ments in  time  of  war.  If  during  war  the  civil  au- 
thorities do  not  guard  railways,  tunnels  and  bridges, 
in  an  efficient  manner,  they  may  be  blown  up." 
Someone  said  in  1688,  "  Without  the  subjugation  of 
Ireland  England  cannot  flourish,  and  perhaps  not 
subsist."  Lord  Ellenborough  comments,  "  every 
word  is  as  true  now  as  it  was  225  years  ago.  .  .  . 
Autonomy  has  been  a  success  in  Canada,  Australia, 
and  New  Zealand,  and  it  may  yet  be  a  success  in 
South  Africa.  But  these  countries  are  thousands  of 
miles  away.  Ireland  is  only  12  miles  distant,  and  is 
far  more  intimately  connected  with  naval  strategy. 
...  If  home  rule  is  granted,  a  three-power  stand- 
ard, instead  of  a  two-power  standard,  must  be  kept 
up." 

The  mainstay  of  such  alarmed  statesmen  is  the 
late  Admiral  Mahan.  "  It  is  impossible,"  the  ad- 
miral said,  "  for  a  military  man  or  a  statesman  with 
appreciation  of  military  conditions,  to  look  at  the 
map  and  not  perceive  that  the  ambition  of  the  Irish 
separatists,  realized,  would  be  even  more  threaten- 
ing to  the  national  life  than  the  secession  of  the  South 
was  to  that  of  the  American  Union." 

This  is  the  spinal  column  of  Earl  Percy's  argu- 
ment. Writing  in  191 2,  he  made  no  attempt  to  con- 
ceal his  belief  in  the  coming  war  with  Germany. 
"  Many  of  those  best  qualified  to  judge  are  of  opin- 
ion that  Germany  is  only  waiting  to  free  herself  of 

[  218  ] 


an  embarrassing  situation,  until  the  power  of  the 
Triple  Entente  is  for  the  time  being  too  much  occu- 
pied to  intervene  in  a  Continental  struggle.  ...  In 
Europe  the  nations  have  set  out  on  the  march  to 
Armageddon,  and  there  is  no  staying  the  progress 
of  their  armaments."  Therefore  home  rule  is  im- 
possible. Before  the  war  Earl  Percy  believed  in 
forcing  conscription  on  Ireland  out  of  hand.  Ac- 
knowledging it  impossible,  he  candidly  declared  that 
"  if  the  passing  of  home  rule  should  require  the  re- 
tention of  a  single  extra  soldier  in  Ireland,  it  is  per- 
fectly certain  that  nothing  could  justify  the  adoption 
of  such  measure,"  and  "  even  if  home  rule  could  be 
shown  to  be  an  act  of  justice  due  to  a  wronged  peo- 
ple who  have  proved  themselves  capable  of  self- 
government,  even  then  it  could  not  be  justified  in  the 
present  crisis  abroad." 

This  is  admirably  honest,  but,  I  think,  hateful.  It 
is  simply  the  English  variety  of  the  worst  German 
ideals.  It  is  precisely  the  argument  of  General  von 
Bissing  in  relation  to  Belgium.  He  speaks  of  "  the 
*  dira  necessitas,'  or  rather  the  sacred  duty,  that  we 
should  retain  Belgium  for  our  influence  and  sphere 
of  power,  and  in  the  interests  of  German  security 
that  we  should  not  give  Belgium  up."  As  Earl 
Percy  speaks  of  Irish  horses  and  man-power,  so  von 
Bissing  speaks  of  Belgian  factories.  "  A  neutral 
Belgium,  or  an  independent  Belgium  based  upon 
treaties  of  a  different  kind,  will  succumb  to  the  disas- 
trous influence  of  England  and  France,  and  to  the 
effort  of  America  to  exploit  Belgian  resources. 
Against  all  this  our  only  weapon  is  the  policy  of 
power,  and  this  policy  must  see  to  it  that  the  Belgian 
population,  now  still  hostile  to  us,  shall  adapt  itself 

[  219  ] 


and  subordinate  itself,  if  only  gradually,  to  the  Ger- 
man domination.  It  is  also  necessary  that,  by  a 
peace  which  will  secure  the  linking  up  of  Belgium 
with  Germany,  we  shall  be  able  to  give  the  necessary 
protection  to  the  Germans  who  have  settled  in  the 
country." 

THE   MORAL 

No  sane  American  can  believe  In  von  Bissing's 
policy.  Yet,  in  all  its  moods  and  tenses,  even  to 
the  protection  of  German  "  unionists,"  it  has  the 
same  ethics  as  Earl  Percy's  policy.  In  one  case  it  is 
Germany  first.  In  the  other  case  it  is  Britain  first. 
Aside  from  its  baseness,  its  notion  of  human  psychol- 
ogy seems  to  be  foolish,  no  less  in  the  English  case 
than  in  the  German.  But  my  point  is  its  influence 
on  the  government  of  Ireland.  It  is  the  worst  influ- 
ence operating  against  the  Irish  people  at  present  — 
honestly  revealed  by  these  junkers  I  have  quoted, 
half-revealed  by  men  in  and  around  the  cabinet. 

Is  this  Mr.  Ernest  Barker's  notion  of  "  the  living 
home  of  divine  freedom"?  Twelve  thousand  po- 
licemen haunting  the  streets  and  byeroads  of  Ireland 
do  not  suggest  divine  freedom.  There  is  little  free- 
dom in  a  colonized  judiciary,  a  reckless  treasury,  an 
irresponsible  educational  board,  a  country  planted 
throughout  with  the  moated  castles  of  antipathetic 
officialdom.  The  forty-two  cliques  of  Dublin  Castle, 
alienated  when  not  prejudiced,  repress  the  activity  of 
every  local  council  in  the  country.  Those  councils, 
baulked  in  other  directions,  deviate  into  political 
manifesto.  One  may  agree  with  Mr.  Barker  that 
the  difficulties  of  Ireland  are  largely  within  the  bor- 
ders of  Ireland.     But  what  does  this  prove  ?     When 

[  220  ] 


a  man  Is  riddled  with  disease,  the  difficulty  Is  all  too 
seriously  within  him.  If  the  British  empire  Is  In 
truth  a  commonwealth,  let  the  notions  of  common- 
weal be  applied  to  Ireland  for  Its  sanity.  Let  the 
first  principles  of  liberty  be  allowed  to  touch  it,  and 
the  tide  of  national  vigor  released. 


I   221    ] 


VIII 
THE  NATIONAL  LEGACY 

WHY   NATIONALISM? 

It  is  not  because  one  is  infatuated  with  the  Irish 
people  that  their  nationalistic  struggle  is  seen  pri- 
marily as  a  human  cause.  The  disabilities  of  Cath- 
olic Irishmen  are  important  not  because  they  are 
Irish  or  because  they  are  Catholic  but  because  they 
have  disabilities.  It  is  this  that  gives  democratic 
sanction  to  the  emphasis  on  their  nationhood. 
There  is  another  emphasis  on  nationhood,  the  cul- 
tural, which  intrudes  patent  difficulties  into  the 
sphere  of  the  state.  This  Is  so  much  the  case  that 
disabilities  take  the  attention  of  many  nationalists 
only  because  their  culture  and  their  peculiarity  are 
affected.  With  such  partisans  there  is  frequently  no 
middle  way.  Their  differentiation  becomes  as  sa- 
cred, exclusive  and  imperious  as  it  dares.  Such 
arrogance,  however,  inheres  in  all  differentiation. 
It  is  often  necessary  to  penalize  it,  and  a  pleasure  to 
do  so,  but  you  cannot  get  rid  of  it  by  crushing  it, 
only  by  directing  it.  Most  of  statecraft,  Indeed,  un- 
less it  be  leviathan  or  stone-age  statecraft,  consists 
in  harnessing  these  barbarous  and  obnoxious  va- 
rieties of  the  will  to  power. 

When  you  think  of  nationalism  merely  as  group 
particularism  it  seems  wholly  unworthy  of  political 
science;  and  political  scientists  as  a  rule  shy  away 

[   222   ] 


from  sanctioning  nationalism.  In  some  respects,  I 
am  afraid,  the  modern  political  scientist  is  not  un- 
like the  political  economist  of  fifty  years  ago.  He 
much  prefers  to  deal  with  issues  uncontaminated  by 
human  nature.  The  war  has  changed  many  things 
and  the  war  may  have  changed  this,  but  throughout 
discussions  of  government  and  the  state  one  is  still 
constantly  aware  of  intense  unwillingness  to  see  good 
systematic  thinking  deranged  by  unmalleable  con- 
glomerates of  fact.  I  have  in  mind,  as  I  write,  the 
kind  of  federalist  who  simply  closes  his  eyes  to  ex- 
isting social  and  economic  partitions,  partitions 
which  need  to  be  removed,  which  nationalism  pro- 
poses to  remove,  which  federalism  blandly  and  in- 
humanly accepts.  If  there  were  no  established 
class  to  monopolize  government,  nationalism  would 
be  a  wild  political  incursion.  But  nationalism  fairly 
enters  politics  as  a  protestant  if  not  a  constructive 
factor.  At  least  to  the  degree  that  government 
bears  upon  members  of  a  national  group  they  are 
bound,  united  by  their  particularism,  to  assert  them- 
selves in  regard  to  government.  If  one  opposes 
this  tendency,  while  failing  to  liberate  government 
Itself  from  the  undue  influence  of  an  established  class, 
the  result  is  to  create  that  very  injustice  which  it  is 
the  pretension  of  political  science  to  cancel.  Hence 
political  science  really  begins,  or  ought  to  begin,  with 
bringing  government  to  a  nationalistic  state  of 
grace. 

THE   NATIONAL   LEADERS 

The  main  difficulty  in  accommodating  Irish  gov- 
ernment to  Irish  nationalism  has  been  the  fallen 
estate  of  the  nationalist  claimants.     There  has  been 

[  223  ] 


at  once  no  greater  proof  of  this  statement  and  no 
greater  testimonial  to  human  nature  than  the  con- 
stituence  of  Irish  leadership.  One  of  the  greatest 
leaders  was  a  Catholic,  O'Connell,  but  with  his  ex- 
ception the  vast  majority  of  political  leaders  have 
been  Protestants.  The  luminaries  of  Grattan's  par- 
liament were  necessarily  Protestant.  It  was  not  till 
1793  that  a  Catholic  was  permitted  to  be  a  citizen 
or  to  aspire  to  education  at  an  Irish  university. 
But  it  was  not  merely  Flood  and  Grattan  who  fought 
for  Ireland,  or,  in  earlier  days,  Swift  and  Molyneux. 
Wolfe  Tone  was  a  Protestant,  so  were  Robert  Em- 
met and  Lord  Edward  Fitzgerald.  After  Cath- 
olic emancipation  and  the  tithe  war  and  the  repeal 
movement  came  Young  Ireland,  with  Protestants 
like  Thomas  Davis  and  Smith  O'Brien  and  Ulster 
Presbyterians  like  John  Mitchel  to  take  up  the  fight 
for  the  people.  Fenianism  was  largely  Catholic, 
but  the  home  rule  movement  was  half  Protestant 
and  Orange  to  begin  with,  led  by  an  Ulster  Prot- 
estant, Isaac  Butt.  Parnell  was  a  Protestant  land- 
lord. One  may  make  the  inference,  if  one  likes, 
that  Catholic  Irishmen  need  a  Protestant  chieftain. 
Or  one  may  make  the  inference  that  between  Cath- 
olic and  Protestant  there  is  no  such  invincible  preju- 
dice as  Ulster  supposes.  What  really  stands 
proved,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  inexorable  claim  on 
common  humanity  that  was  made  on  these  Protes- 
tants by  the  lamentable  state  of  Ireland. 

With  their  own  eyes  these  men  saw  the  violation 
of  democratic  principle  at  every  turn,  and,  what- 
ever their  heredity,  they  revolted,  as  Englishmen 
in  England  had  similarly  revolted,  against  English 
misrule.     Gladstone  and  Morley,  in  this  sense,  were 

[  224  ] 


Irish  leaders  too;  but  the  poignancy  of  Ireland,  the 
tragic  import  of  her  claims,  could  only  be  felt  by 
men  who  had  dipped  their  bread  in  the  salt  of  ostra- 
cism. Parnell's  hatred  of  England  was  unintelli- 
gible to  John  Bright.  Bright  repudiated  home  rule 
because  of  it.  But  Parnell  had  seen  death  in  the 
eyes  of  landlorded  peasants.  The  empire  he  beheld 
was  not  the  great  institution  that  Bright  criticized  as 
an  engineer  might  criticize  a  beloved  engine.  Par- 
nell saw  the  empire  as  juggernaut,  huge,  self-consid- 
ering, beyond  appeal.  When  Gladstone  unjustly  im- 
prisoned him  he  was  not  surprised.  He  was  not 
surprised  when  Mr.  Balfour  denigrated  Irish  pohtl- 
cal  prisoners,  forced  them  to  clean  out  water-closets. 
The  zebra  clothes  with  which  the  nationalist  con- 
victs were  clad  symbolized  to  Parnell  the  thing  he 
hated  in  the  union,  England's  impunity.  That  im- 
punity was  only  too  actual  when  he  himself  was 
"  thrown  to  the  wolves."  His  Protestantism  was 
his  Inheritance,  Ireland  his  experience.  His  experi- 
ence convinced  him  that  between  strong  and  weak 
the  weak  must  suspect  the  strong,  must  pursue  Go- 
liath relentlessly.  Only  heroism  can  save  David. 
England's  comfortable  righteousness  he  ridiculed, 
and  the  righteousness  was  not  a  myth.  It  could  jail 
him  in  1880  for  agitating  a  reform  that  the  Unionists 
unctuously  adopted  in  1903. 

A  giant's  task 
If  Parnell  was  feared  by  England,  O'Connell  was 
loathed  and  despised.  It  is  amusing  now  to  recall 
the  note  of  the  London  Times  on  O'Connell's  con- 
sultation with  the  lord  lieutenant  Mulgrave.  "  It 
has  been  proved  beyond  a  doubt  that  Lord  Mulgrave 

[  225  ] 


has  actually  Invited  to  dinner  that  rancorous  and 
foul-mouthed  ruffian,  O'Connell."  But  this  trucu- 
lence  of  the  strong  to  the  weak  was  more  than  calcu- 
lated political  insult.  Lord  Morley  has  included  in 
his  life  of  Richard  Cobden  a  letter  that  sadly  illus- 
trates the  division  of  the  two  peoples.  "  I  found 
the  populace  of  Ireland  represented  in  the  House  by 
a  body  of  men,  with  O'Connell  at  their  head,  with 
whom  I  could  feel  no  more  sympathy  or  identity 
than  with  people  whose  language  I  did  not  under- 
stand." So  he  wrote  in  1848,  looking  back  seven 
years.  "  In  fact,"  he  continued,  "  morally  I  felt  a 
complete  antagonism  and  repulsion  toward  them. 
O'Connell  always  treated  me  with  friendly  atten- 
tion, but  I  never  shook  hands  with  him  or  faced  his 
smile  without  a  feeling  of  insecurity;  and  as  for 
trusting  him  on  any  public  question  where  his  vanity 
or  passions  might  interpose,  I  should  have  as  soon 
thought  of  an  alliance  with  an  Ashantee  chief."  It 
is  interesting  to  turn  from  this  to  Morley's  own 
opinion,  fifty  years  after.  "  Goldwin  Smith,"  he 
says,  "  hints  that  I  am  for  home  rule  because  I  am 
ignorant  of  Ireland.  His  own  personal  knowledge 
of  Ireland  seems  to  have  been  acquired  in  a  very 
short  visit  to  a  Unionist  circle  here  thirty  years  ago ! 
What  can  be  more  shallow  and  ill-considered  than 
to  dismiss  O'Connell  '  as  an  agitator,  not  a  states- 
man.' O'Connell's  noble  resolution,  insight,  per- 
sistency in  lifting  up  his  Catholic  countrymen,  in  giv- 
ing them  some  confidence  in  themselves,  in  preach- 
ing the  grand  doctrine  of  union  among  Irishmen,  and 
of  toleration  between  the  two  creeds,  in  extorting 
justice  from  England  and  the  English  almost  at  the 

[  226  ] 


point  of  the  bayonet  —  all  this  stamps  O'Connell  as 
a  statesman  and  a  patriot  of  the  first  order." 

Is  it  irrelevant  that  Richard  Cobden  says  of  him- 
self, "  [I]  had  frequently  been  in  that  country  (I  had 
a  cousin,  a  rector  of  the  Church  of  England  in  Tip- 
perary)"  ? 

O'Connell's  task  was  gigantic,  "  lifting  up  his 
Catholic  countrymen."  A  hundred  years  before  he 
came,  England  had  organized  their  degradation  and 
Mr.  Bagwell  quotes  Petty  as  to  their  condition  at 
that  time.  "Of  the  inhabited  houses  16,000  had 
more  than  one  chimney,  24,000  had  only  one,  leav- 
ing 160,000  without  any.  Three-fourths  of  the 
land  and  five-sixths  of  the  houses  belonged  to  British 
Protestants,  and  '  three-fourths  of  the  native  Irish 
lived  in  a  brutish,  nasty  condition,  as  in  cabins,  with 
neither  chimney,  door,  stairs,  nor  window,  fed 
chiefly  upon  milk  and  potatoes.'  "  When  Sir  Wal- 
ter Scott  visited  Ireland  in  O'Connell's  hour,  1825, 
there  was  astonishingly  little  change.  The  "  heart 
of  the  stranger  was  sickened  by  such  widespread 
manifestations  of  the  wanton  and  reckless  profligacy 
of  human  mismanagement,  the  withering  curse  of 
feuds  and  factions,  and  the  tyrannous  selfishness  of 
absenteeism."  Carlyle  was  to  come  later  with  his 
ironic  ejaculation  over  their  squalor  and  misery, 
"  Black-lead  them  and  put  them  over  with  the  nig- 
gers." This  was  the  clay  that  O'Connell  modelled, 
to  be  duly  transferred  to  Parnell. 

THE    MORAL    BOG    HOE 

Did  the  world  see  cause  and  effect  in  the  condi- 
tion of  Irishmen,  or  did  they  infer  from  Irishmen's 

[  227  ] 


degradation  an  innate  barbarity  and  worthlessness? 
I  shall  only  stop  to  cite  those  well-known  passages 
in  Walden  relating  to  John  Field.  When  Thoreau 
wrote  Walden  in  1 845-1 847  the  Irish  were  the  most 
degraded  poor  in  America.  Thousands  of  them 
were  employed  in  railroad  construction,  and  they 
were  crowded  in  railroad  shanties,  "  human  beings 
living  in  sties."  So  closely  were  they  associated 
with  digging  in  the  dirt,  that  Thoreau  could  not  think 
of  the  hated  railroad  without  thinking  of  "  a  million 
Irish,  starting  up  from  all  the  shanties  in  the  land." 
"  We  do  not  ride  on  the  railroad,"  said  this  New 
England  Diogenes,  "  it  rides  upon  us.  Did  you  ever 
think  what  those  sleepers  are  that  underlie  the  rail- 
road? Each  one  is  a  man,  an  Irishman,  or  a  Yankee 
man.  The  rails  are  laid  on  them,  and  they  are  cov- 
ered with  sand,  and  the  cars  run  smoothly  over 
them.  They  are  sound  sleepers,  I  assure  you." 
This,  and  the  adumbration  of  native  squalor  that 
came  with  the  immigrants,  gave  Thoreau  his  clue  to 
Ireland. 

With  such  presumptions,  Thoreau  entered  the 
hovel  of  John  Field.  John  made  his  living  near 
Walden  as  a  laboring  man.  "  An  honest,  hard- 
working, but  shiftless  man  plainly  was  John  Field; 
and  his  wife,  she  too  was  brave  to  cook  so  many  suc- 
cessive dinners  in  the  recesses  of  that  lofty  stove; 
with  round  greasy  face  and  bare  breast,  still  think- 
ing to  improve  her  condition  one  day;  with  the  never 
absent  mop  in  one  hand,  and  yet  no  effects  of  it 
visible  anywhere."  The  picture  is  etched  by  a  mas- 
ter. And  then  the  master  moralizes:  "A  man 
will  not  need  to  study  history  to  find  out  what  is  best 
for  his  own  culture.  But  alas !  the  culture  of  an 
[  228  ] 


Irishman  is  an  enterprise  to  be  undertaken  with  a 
sort  of  moral  bog  hoe.  ...  I  suppose  they  still 
take  life  bravely,  after  their  fashion,  giving  it 
tooth  and  nail,  not  having  skill  to  spHt  its  massive 
columns  with  any  fine  entering  wedge,  and  rout  it 
in  detail; — thinking  to  deal  with  it  roughly,  as  one 
should  handle  a  thistle.  But  they  fight  at  an  over- 
whelming disadvantage, —  living,  John  Field,  alas  ! 
without  arithmetic,  and  failing  so !  " 

UP    FROM    SLAVERY 

So  far,  excellent  Thoreau.  And  then  we  come  to 
the  racial  hypothesis.  "  Before  I  had  reached  the 
pond  some  fresh  impulse  had  brought  out  John 
Field,  with  altered  mind,  letting  go  '  bogging  '  ere 
this  sunset.  But  he,  poor  man,  disturbed  only  a 
couple  of  fins  while  I  was  catching  a  fair  string,  and 
he  said  It  was  his  luck;  but  when  we  changed  seats 
in  the  boat  luck  changed  seats  too.  Poor  John 
Field !  —  I  trust  he  does  not  read  this,  unless  he  will 
improve  by  it, —  thinking  to  live  by  derivative  old 
country  mode  in  this  primitive  new  country, —  to 
catch  perch  with  shiners.  It  is  good  bait  sometimes, 
I  allow.  With  his  horizon  all  his  own,  yet  he  a 
poor  man,  born  to  be  poor,  with  his  inherited  Irish 
poverty  or  poor  life,  his  Adam's  grandmother  and 
boggy  ways,  not  to  rise  in  this  world,  he  nor  his  pos- 
terity, till  their  wading  webbed  bog-trotting  feet  get 
talaria  to  their  heels." 

There  is  more  instruction  in  this  threnody  than 
in  many  a  blue  book.  It  goes  a  long  way  to  sug- 
gest the  depths  of  Irish  slavery  and  the  pitying  pes- 
simism that  so  often  condescends  to  it.  In  the  re- 
action from  that  slavery,  still  by  no  means  com- 
[  229  ] 


pleted,  It  Is  easy  to  see  how  Irish  nationalism  took 
excessive  forms.  Social  and  economic  hardship  did 
not  turn  every  Irishman  into  a  hero.  The  politi- 
cians from  whom  Cobden  shrank,  for  example,  were 
many  of  them  known  to  be  venal  and  loathsome. 
Outside  the  genuine  patriots  and  rebels,  outside  the 
sterling  conciliators,  there  were  Innumerable  fustian 
orators,  cringing  and  fawning  blackguards,  com- 
promisers, buffoons,  blusterers,  louts,  a  scum  of  inso- 
lent and  pretentious  carpet-baggers,  trading  on  Irish 
sorrows  and  capitalizing  Irish  wounds.  This,  apart 
from  the  sting  of  caustic,  shows  why  Thackeray's 
delineation  of  Irish  gentility  made  the  genteel  Irish 
hate  him;  why  Synge's  Playboy  of  the  Western 
World  touched  a  repressed  feeling  of  inferiority. 
Nor  were  the  excesses  of  nationalism  always  lowly. 
There  was  an  excess  In  the  exalted  Gaellcism  of  the 
modern  generation.  There  was  a  large  element  of 
passionate  compensation  for  the  past  In  the  rebellion 
of  1916. 

THE    landlord's    SIDE 

But  before  one  considers  the  reactions  from 
slavery,  one  must  look  at  the  landlord's  side  of  the 
case.  Landlordism  Included  all  kinds  of  people, 
people  in  no  way  tyrannical,  good  bewildered  people 
who  never  knew  they  were  deemed  blameworthy 
until  they  were  walked  out  to  the  guillotine.  In  the 
way  that  many  parsons  under  the  established  church 
were  like  Goldsmith's  parson,  as  poor  as  church 
mice,  so  many  landowners  gave  quite  as  much  as 
they  got  under  the  miserable  land  system  in  Ireland. 

The  late  Miss  Violet  Martin,  one  of  the  authors 
of    An    Irish     R.M.,     has     left    an     illuminating 

[  230  ] 


memoir  of  her  brother,  a  Unionist  "  emergency 
man."  In  that  memoir  (the  first  chapter  of  Irish 
Memories)  one  is  shown  the  other  side  of  tenant  and 
landlord.  There  is  a  glimpse  of  her  family's  be- 
loved Connaught  estate,  carried  on  since  the  days  of 
Queen  Elizabeth.  Not  till  1872,  the  first  home  rule 
election,  were  the  kindly  intimacies  altered.  All 
through  the  famine  and  Fenian  days  Ross  went  un- 
troubled. "  The  mutal  dependence  of  landlord  and 
tenant  remained  unshaken;  it  was  a  delicate  relation, 
almost  akin  to  matrimony,  and  like  a  happy  marriage, 
it  needed  that  both  sides  should  be  good  fellows. 
The  disestablishment  of  the  Irish  church  came  in 
1869,  a  direct  blow  at  Protestantism,  and  an  equally 
direct  tax  upon  landlords  for  the  support  of  their 
church,  but  of  this  revolution  the  tenants  appeared 
to  be  unaware.  In  1870  came  Gladstone's  land  act, 
which  by  a  system  of  fines  shielded  the  tenant  to  a 
great  extent  from  '  capricious  eviction.'  As  evic- 
tions, capricious  or  otherwise,  did  not  occur  at  Ross, 
this  section  of  the  act  was  not  of  epoch-making  im- 
portance there;  its  other  provisions,  by  which  tenants 
became  proprietors  of  their  own  improvements,  was 
also  something  of  a  superfluity." 

Then,  in  1872,  the  serpent  of  nationalism  apr 
peared  in  the  Eden  of  feudalism.  Miss  Martin 
transcribes  very  distinctly  the  emotion  of  that  first 
election.  "  It  went  without  saying  that  my  father 
gave  his  support  to  the  Conservative,  who  was  also  a 
Galway  man,  and  the  son  of  a  friend.  Up  to  that 
time  it  was  a  matter  of  course  that  the  Ross  tenants 
voted  with  their  landlord.  .  .  .  During  the  morn- 
ing my  father  ranged  through  the  crowd  incred- 
ulously, asking  for  this  or  that  tenant,  unable  to  be- 

[  231  ] 


lieve  that  they  had  deserted  him.  It  was  a  futile 
search;  with  a  few  valiant  exceptions  the  Ross  ten- 
ants, following  the  example  of  the  rest  of  the  constit- 
uency, voted  according  to  the  orders  of  the  church, 
and  Captain  Nolan  was  elected  by  a  majority  of  four 
to  one.  It  was  a  priest  from  another  part  of  the  dio- 
cese, who  gave  forth  the  mandate,  with  an  extraor- 
dinary fury  of  hate  against  the  landlord  side;  one 
need  not  blam,e  the  sheep  who  passed  in  a  frightened 
huddle  from  one  fold  to  another.  When  my  father 
came  home  that  afternoon,  even  the  youngest  child 
of  the  house  could  see  how  great  had  been  the  blow. 
It  was  not  the  political  defeat,  severe  as  that  was, 
it  was  the  personal  wound,  and  it  was  incurable.  .  .  . 
The  ballot  act  followed  in  June,  but  these  things 
could  not  soothe  the  wounded  spirit  of  the  men  who 
had  trusted  in  their  tenants."  Miss  Martin's  father 
never  recovered. 

Here  you  have  kind  and  sympathetic  feudalism, 
essentially  aristocratic,  yet  essentially  genial,  extir- 
pated at  the  same  time  as  its  intolerable  companions. 
No  one,  I  think,  can  fail  to  see  Miss  Martin's  affec- 
tion for  the  tenants;  but  the  Ireland  of  the  upstart 
tenant  was  a  new  Ireland  to  her,  a  questionable  Ire- 
land, and  she  sided  against  home  rule  to  the  last. 
Stephen  Gwynn,  M.P.,  told  this  gifted  Irishwoman 
in  her  own  idiom  that  home  rule  was  not  necessarily 
part  and  parcel  with  cold  desertions  and  broken 
fealties.  She  could  not  quite  believe  him.  "  There 
was  ploughing  going  on,"  narrated  Miss  Martin  to 
her  correspondent  in  19 12,  "  and  all  the  good,  quiet 
work  that  one  longs  to  do,  instead  of  braln-wrlnging 
inside  four  walls.  I  wondered  deeply  and  sincerely 
whether  home  rule  could  increase  the  peacefulness, 

[  232  ] 


or  whether  It  will  not  be  like  upsetting  a  basket  of 
snakes  over  the  country?  These  people  have 
bought  their  land.  They  manage  their  own  local 
affairs.  Must  there  be  yet  another  upheaval  for 
them?  .  .  ."  "  Why  snakes?  "  Captain  Gwynn  re- 
joined. "  To  my  mind  the  present  System  breeds 
'snakes'  .  .  .  For  Gentlefolk  (to  use  the  old 
word)  who  want  to  live  in  the  country,  Ireland  is 
going  to  be  a  better  place  to  live  in  than  it  has  been 
these  thirty  years  —  yes,  or  than  before,  for  it  is  bad 
for  people  to  be  a  caste.  .  .  .  Caste  is  at  the  bottom 
of  nine-tenths  of  our  trouble."  But  to  caste,  quite 
valorously,  Miss  Martin  continued  to  chng. 

THE    GOOD    SLAVEOWNER 

No  social  institution,  whether  it  is  landlordism  or 
the  priesthood  or  the  army  or  Dublin  Castle  or 
prostitution,  can  entirely  subvert  human  kindness. 
The  good  man  of  the  worst  regime  Is  always  superior 
to  the  poor  man  of  the  best  regime,  and  no  two 
systems  are  so  far  apart  that  they  do  not  partially 
overlap.  It  is  this  that  makes  confiscation  so  anti- 
social, and  makes  compromise  so  obligatory.  But 
landlordism,  for  all  the  goodness  that  extenuated  its 
badness,  for  all  its  fine  exponents  and  hot  character 
witnesses,  was  justly  sentenced  to  sell  out.  Every- 
thing that  can  be  said  for  chattel  slavery  by  an  ex- 
slaveholder  can  be  urged  for  the  old  landlord  system 
in  Ireland  —  and  a  man  would  be  a  fool  to  deride  the 
pragmatic  evidence  of  men  and  women  from  the 
south  of  the  United  States.  But  some  commonplaces 
of  human  aspiration  are  better  not  debated.  Hatred 
of  slavery  is  one  of  them.  Men  are  committed  to 
the  infinitely  complex  and  dangerous  and  universal 

[  233  ] 


experiment  of  self-determination,  and  the  superb 
theorem  of  Abraham  Lincoln  — "  No  man  is  good 
enough  to  govern  another  man  without  that  other's 
consent  " —  has  something  in  it  that  surpasses  the 
lonely  Olympianism  of  Nietzsche.  Obedience  to 
the  priest,  as  Miss  Martin  saw  it,  was  no  more  self- 
determination  than  obedience  to  the  landlord;  but 
the  history  of  land  agitation  shows  that  the  tenants 
who  bolted  in  1872  were  answering  a  deeper  call 
than  the  call  of  clericalism.  In  point  of  fact,  few 
priests  favored  home  rule  at  the  beginning.  The 
tenants  really  deserted  their  landlord  in  1872  be- 
cause the  root  of  nationalism  was  in  them.  The 
new  phrase,  "  home  rule,"  pulsated  with  promise 
for  them,  a  promise  of  something  much  more  stirring 
than  federalism,  something  fundamental,  something 
that  opened  wide  arms  to  them.  Landlords  still 
forget  this.  They  still  delude  themselves  to  the 
contrary.  In  19 13  Sir  Reginald  Pole-Carew  con- 
fided to  the  House  of  Commons  that  "  if  you  were 
to  live  as  I  do  among  farmers  and  go  about  and 
talk  to  them  —  I  grant  you  singly,  because  if  you 
get  two  together  they  dare  not  give  an  opinion  — 
if  you  get  them  alone  they  tell  you  they  are  living 
now  in  fear  and  dread  of  getting  home  rule."  What 
else,  I  wonder,  did  the  farmers  of  Kilkenny  tell  that 
honorable  and  gallant  gentleman?  Did  they  tell 
him,  by  any  chance,  that  they  live  in  fear  and  dread 
of  getting  a  bigger  price  for  heifers? 

NOT   ALL    BOLSHEVIKI 

It  would  be  wrong  to  suggest  that  Ireland  was  at 
a  high  pitch  of  nationalism  at  the  time  of  which  Sir 
Reginald  Pole-Carew  was  speaking.     Its  nationalism 
[  234  ] 


was  not  so  flaccid  as  he  wished  to  think,  but  until  the 
executions  of  191 6  it  did  show  many  signs  of  being 
too  thwarted  to  assert  itself.  From  1894  to  19 14 
the  south  of  Ireland  was  tired  of  pugnacious  nation- 
ahsm.  Here  I  think  it  may  be  ventured  that  the 
long  repression  of  personality,  the  long  disregard 
of  will,  had  undoubtedly  left  effects  on  the  native 
Irish.  Superficially,  at  any  rate,  Ireland  is  a  country 
with  an  undue  proportion  of  mild,  innocuous,  charm- 
ing people,  easily  swayed  from  their  set  purposes, 
disposed  to  say  "  yes  "  to  the  latest  agreeable  sug- 
gestion, rather  unusually  averse  to  the  Puritan  habit 
of  moral  bookkeeping,  twice  as  pleasant  for  casual 
acquaintance  on  that  account,  but  prevented  by  this 
characteristic  from  attaining  the  valuable  results  that 
are  won  by  the  resolute  and  the  self-preserving. 
The  main  difference  between  the  Englishman  and  the 
Irishman  is  probably  this  difference  in  steady  voli- 
tion, this  difference  as  to  what  is  admired  as  "  per- 
severance." A  serious  lack  in  the  business  of  life. 
It  is  a  quality  inevitably  cultivated  where  men  have 
the  habit  of  property  and  the  political  conviction  of 
self-help.  The  absence  of  perseverance  by  no  means 
justifies  the  hideous  morbid  introspection  that  un- 
derlies the  melancholy  of  Ireland.  Nor  is  it  a  char- 
acteristic peculiar  to  Ireland.  Closely  connected 
with  lonely  agriculturalism,  it  is  much  more  des- 
perate both  In  kind  and  degree  in  the  genius  of  the 
politically  retarded  Russians.  One  finds  it  less  fre- 
quently In  the  United  States,  where  prosperity  amel- 
iorates rural  life  to  some  slight  degree.  In  New 
England,  however,  there  Is  the  morbidity  that  one 
finds  In  the  south  of  Ireland  —  less  dreamy,  but  not 
less  Intractable,   and  leading  to  the  same  helpless 

[  235  ] 


depression.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  sort  of  childishness, 
which  takes  the  struggle  of  life  with  too  intense  a 
seriousness,  and  centres  on  itself,  and  becomes  para- 
lyzed. Many  of  the  early  plays  of  the  Abbey 
Theatre  bear  witness  to  the  depth  of  Irish  neuras- 
thenia. The  re-birth  of  Irish  culture  was  genuine 
but  the  baby  was  a  bluish  baby. 

THE    ENGLISH    BIBLE 

In  the  average  Englishman  one  less  often  finds 
this  depression.  One  finds  a  heightened  instinct,  an 
orderly  art,  of  self-preservation.  By  this  I  do  not 
mean  that  the  more  prosperous  are  more  selfish. 
We  are  all  selfish,  all  except  saints  and  fools.  But 
prosperous  selfishness  is  calculative,  practical,  com- 
promising. It  is  very  pretty,  of  course,  to  think  that 
your  mild,  impressible  Irishman  is  a  model  of  un- 
selfishness, that  he  is  superior  to  mundane  consid- 
erations. But  marry  one  of  them,  and  you'll  see. 
In  her  memoirs  Ellen  Terry  remarks  that  she  likes 
the  "  hard  woman."  It  is  the  same  species  of  in- 
stinct that  made  Turgeniev  love  Bazarov,  and  that 
made  George  Meredith  bestow  Diana  on  the  sober 
Englishman.  Ellen  Terry  and  Turgeniev  and 
Meredith  knew  infantilism  in  themselves.  They 
knew  what  it  was  to  break  their  hearts  crying  for  the 
moon.  And  when  they  found  a  decent  human  being 
who  wasn't  a  lunatic,  they  made  him  a  hero. 

The  Bible  of  the  Englishman  is  not  Don  Quix- 
ote. It  is  Robinson  Crusoe.  Robinson  Crusoe 
is  the  epic  of  common  sense.  Most  novels  deal 
with  the  mating  instinct.  Here  is  the  most  suc- 
cessful of  novels,  and  nothing  mates  in  it  except  the 
edible.     Food  and  shelter   are  its  goals.     It  cele- 

[  236  ] 


brates,  from  first  to  last,  the  instinct  of  self-preserva- 
tion. Its  motto  is  Sinn  Fein,  self-help.  It  is  a  glori- 
ous record  of  the  kind  of  individualism  that  never 
questions  its  own  validity.  Had  Crusoe  been 
brought  up  in  the  habit  of  self-distrust,  he  might  eas- 
ily have  died  of  self-pity,  murmuring  "  it's  the  will  o' 
God!  "  But  while  Crusoe  was  almost  offensively 
pious,  he  had  a  most  prodigious  sense  of  his  impor- 
tance. This  was  eminently  clear  when  Friday  came 
along.  Crusoe  annexed  him  without  a  shadow  of 
doubt.  It  was  instinctive  imperialism.  There  was 
nothing  democratic  about  it  —  no  communism,  no 
manhood  suffrage,  no  liberty,  equality  and  fraternity. 
It  was  up  to  Friday  to  make  terms,  but  Crusoe  had 
the  advantage  of  knowing  his  own  mind,  and  while  he 
wanted  Friday  to  trust  him,  he  never  felt  inclined 
for  one  moment  to  adopt  the  amiable  Irish  euphem- 
ism, "  I'll  leave  it  to  yourself."  Odious  results  come 
from  this  habit  of  self-preference.  Crusoe  was  on 
an  island  where  there  was  no  workhouse,  no  trade 
union,  no  employment  agency.  So  he  developed  the 
unfortunate  habit  of  Sinn  Fein. 

THE    PLIANT    IRISH 

In  Catholic  Ireland,  where  the  atmosphere  Is  still 
somewhat  feudal  and  aristocratic,  Don  Quixote  is 
much  more  of  a  person  than  Robinson  Crusoe. 
Chivalry  is  still  the  code,  or  the  dream.  As  In  Rus- 
sia or  the  Southern  United  States,  material  back- 
wardness is  considered  of  less  Importance  than 
"  ideals,"  and  a  great  deal  of  sarcastic  wit  plays  about 
the  gentleman  who  helps  himself.  In  an  aristocracy, 
of  course,  you  belittle  yourself  if  you  help  yourself. 
If  you  do  a  thing  because  you  have  to,  you  are  one 

[  237  ] 


of  the  common  herd.  If  you  do  it  without  having 
to,  you  are  a  "  gentleman."  You  can  haul  manure 
without  degradation  in  Ireland,  if  only  the  country- 
people  think  you  are  well-off.  But  if  it  appears  that 
you  need  money,  then  "  he's  the  same  as  ourselves," 
a  degradation  almost  unmentionable. 

Out  of  this  pliant  stuff  a  vigorous  nationalism  is 
not  obviously  made,  and  it  was  no  wonder  that  the 
Irish  unionists  continually  expected  the  farmers  to  go 
back  on  home  rule.  But  this  taint  of  ascendancy 
has  usually  proved  itself  superficial,  and  it  acted  as  a 
positive  irritant  on  middle-class  Ireland. 

To  understand  Irish  politics  one  must  ignore  the 
farmer  for  a  moment  and  look  to  that  epochal  event 
in  Irish  history,  the  Intermediate  education  act  of 
1878.  Up  to  1878  the  secondary  education  of 
Catholic  boys  and  girls  was  In  a  poor  way.  The 
Christian  Brothers'  schools  had  solid  worth,  but  they 
were  primary,  and  the  convents  and  polite  board- 
ing schools  cared  for  too  few  pupils.  Up  to  1908 
higher  education  for  Catholics  was  practically  non- 
existent. But  the  Investment  of  £1,000,000  jn  1878 
provided  for  a  national  system  of  annual  exam- 
inations—  the  bread  pudding  of  Instruction  being 
loaded  with  plums  for  the  scholars  and  succulent  re- 
sult-fees for  the  teachers.  As  a  pedagogical  system 
It  was  atrocious.  The  teachers  treated  the  pupils  as 
the  New  York  poultry-dealers  treat  chickens,  cram- 
ming them  for  weight  with  an  adroit  mixture  of 
food  and  good  ponderable  sand.  But  there  was  a 
certain  value  in  It.  From  1878  on,  six  or  seven 
thousand  middle-class  youths  pushed  farther  out  of 
illiteracy  than  ever  before.  Few  decent  careers 
opened  for  them,  but  they  were  the  nucleus  for  the 

[  238  ] 


later  developments  of  nationalism  —  Sinn  Fein  and 
the  Gaelic  League.  Anyone  who  examines  the  news- 
papers of  that  period  will  discover  that  Cork,  Dub- 
lin, Limerick,  Waterford,  Kilkenny,  Athlone,  Gal- 
way,  Ennis,  Wexford,  were  feeding  hot  nationalism 
to  a  flood  of  romantic,  eager  youth.  The  land  agi- 
tation, Parnellism,  the  Split,  were  landmarks  to  the 
graduates  of  the  intermediate.  It  made  no  differ- 
ence that  Irish  history  was  sterilized  by  the  inter- 
mediate board.  It  made  no  difference  that  Par- 
nell  was  anathema  in  many  Catholic  households  after 
his  downfall.  In  his  Portrait  of  the  Artist  as  a 
Young  Man  Mr.  James  Joyce  has  revealed  how  the 
nationalist  schism  was  malignant  even  during  Christ- 
mas dinners.  But  soon  a  new  voice  was  in  the 
land,  the  voice  of  Gaelic.  Young  Ireland  re-discov- 
ered old  Ireland.  Dillon  and  Redmond  were  flog- 
ging the  tired  parliamentarian  horse,  but  after  Par- 
nelHsm  the  rest  was  silence.  The  play  continued, 
but  all  Ireland  had  spoken  with  Horatio,  "  Now 
cracks  a  noble  heart.  Good  night,  sweet 
prince.  .  .  ."  The  youth  of  Ireland  flung  itself  Into 
the  Gaelic  revival. 

THE    REDMOND    ERA 

This  subtraction  of  young  vitality  from  the  poli- 
ticians misled  intelligent  Englishmen.  "  Home 
rule,"  mused  Lord  Ribblesdale  in  19 13,  "has  be- 
come a  comparatively  sober  affair.  To  quote  Lord 
Rosebery  again,  the  Cerberus  of  Irish  discontent 
has  become  a  comparatively  mild-mannered  creature. 
Then  another  statement  was  that  the  age  of  romance 
seems  over  in  Ireland.  I  think  that  exists  now  only 
In  the  excellent  school  of  young  Irish  poets.     No 

[  339  ] 


greater  contrast,  I  think,  can  be  imagined  than  the 
contrast  between  such  men  as  Swift  and  Flood  and 
Grattan,  O'Connell  and  Parnell,  and  the  two  Mr. 
Redmonds.  The  earlier  men  were  cast  in  the  heroic 
mould;  the  later  in  the  municipal.  I  do  not  say  they 
are  the  worse  for  that;  indeed,  to  that  extent  they 
are  much  better  to  deal  with."  This  is  the  cham- 
pagne of  malice,  but  not  quite  so  good  a  vintage 
as  Lord  Ribblesdale  may  have  imagined.  Mr. 
John  Redmond  was  no  more  municipal  than  Camp- 
bell-Bannerman.  Captain  W.  A.  Redmond  did  not 
die  municipally.  And  yet  Lord  Ribblesdale  dis- 
cerned the  reality.  He  saw  that  romance  had  as- 
cended to  the  poets. 

But  before  the  poets,  the  parliamentarians.  Mr. 
Redmond  and  his  colleagues  did  make  one  fatal 
error  after  the  Liberals  resumed  office  in  1905. 
They  completely  failed  to  dramatize  for  Ireland 
the  attack  on  the  House  of  Lords.  It  was,  in  a 
definite  sense,  Ireland's  campaign.  If  the  Na- 
tionalists were  over-numerous  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons they  were  as  scarce  as  Hindus  in  the  citadel 
of  privilege.  Popular  Ireland  had  no  more  chance 
of  converting  the  upper  house  than  a  Negro  has  of 
being  senator  from  Alabama.  This  rigidity  ended 
home  rule.  The  moment  the  Commons  joined  issues 
with  the  Lords,  Ireland's  prospects  brightened,  and 
it  was  for  the  parliamentarians  to  dramatize  this 
process.  The  task  was  beyond  them.  So  long  as 
Moses  was  parting  the  waves  the  chosen  people  kept 
excited.  The  long  journey  through  the  desert  of 
constitutionalism  was  tedious.  An  occasional  flurry 
of  agrarian  warfare  relieved  the  tedium,  but  it  re- 
quires miracles  —  burning  bushes,   rods   eating  up 

[  240  ] 


other  rods,  dry  passage  between  cliffs  of  water  —  to 
keep  the  promised  land  before  exiles.  And  John 
Redmond  had  no  genius  for  miracles. 

It  would  be  wrong  to  underestimate  John  Red- 
mond.^ He  was,  in  a  large  sense,  a  man  with  style. 
He  was  the  kind  of  a  speaker  who  brought  to 
public  adddress  something  more  than  the  weight  of 
argument.  He  gave  argument  the  weight  of  per- 
sonality. It  was  not  an  aroused  and  pungent  per- 
sonality, it  had  none  of  the  blue  steel  of  Parnell, 
but  it  was  serious  and  responsible,  it  had  a  peculiar 
depth  of  dignity.  Only  an  Irishman,  perhaps,  who 
knew  well  what  it  was  to  listen  to  excruciating  na- 
tional orators  could  entirely  enjoy  the  grave  and 
melodious  utterance  of  John  Redmond.  He  had  a 
proud,  imperious  profile,  the  profile  of  a  senator,  and 
there  was  something  lofty  and  senatorial  in  the  pub- 
lic style  he  matured.  He  thought  justly.  He 
spoke  fastidiously.  He  never  condescended  to 
slang  or  the  platform  humor  which  is  the  spiritual 
equivalent  of  slang,  and  he  never  came  much  nearer 
to  comedy  than  sarcasm.  Yet  the  organ-tone  in 
which  he  spoke  did  not  belie  his  seriousness,  his  mar- 
shalling intelligence,  his  fortified  convictions,  his  for- 
midable honesty.  The  style  truly  became  the  char- 
acter. 

The  great  proof  of  Redmond's  character  was,  of 
course,  the  leadership  of  the  Irish  parliamentary 
party  since  1900.  Those  on  the  inside  know  what 
this  leadership  required,  but  any  American  may 
fairly  surmise  that  the  management  of  eighty  na- 
tionalists in  the  British  parliament  was  in  no  sense  a 

^  The    rest    of    this    chapter    previously    appeared    in    the    Ne^ 
Republic. 

[   241    ] 


sinecure.  Even  eighty  nationalists  do  not  neces- 
sarily agree.  The  main  body  of  nationalists  had 
deposed  their  great  captain  Parnell  just  ten  years 
before,  and  Redmond  himself  had  led  the  passionate 
minority  that  took  Gladstone  as  their  Bismarck  and 
Parnellism  as  their  Alsace-Lorraine.  Not  until  the 
Boer  war  was  the  futility  of  this  division  acknowl- 
edged and  a  reconciliation  put  through.  There  were 
centrifugal  forces  in  the  party  even  then,  T.  M. 
Healy  and  William  O'Brien  representing  them,  but 
it  was  not  long  before  Healy  and  O'Brien  were 
•  safely  segregated  and  the  rest  of  the  party  effectively 
organized.  The  Interminable  Liberal  regime  from 
1905  must  have  had  a  good  deal  to  do  with  Red- 
mond's security.  With  the  introduction  of  a  new 
home  rule  bill  he  was  indispensable.  His  party  set- 
tled into  the  harness  and  he  tooled  them  easily.  But 
the  very  ease  with  which  he  was  acknowledged 
"  leader  of  the  Irish  race  at  home  and  abroad  "  dis- 
guised the  realities  of  Irish  political  feeling,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  those  reahties  of  which  he  was  mas- 
ter, Irish  party  organization. 

It  was  the  parti-educated  youth  that  were  signifi- 
cant, and  Mr.  Redmond's  parliamentarians  left  them 
out  In  the  cold.  During  the  decade  that  followed  the 
death  of  Parnell  In  1891  the  deadly  internecine  war- 
fare of  Healyites  and  O'Brienites  and  Dillonites  and 
Redmonites  monopolized  the  parliamentarians' 
energy,  and  they  sacrificed  the  young  Idea.  The 
youth  of  Ireland  received  about  the  same  inspiration 
from  the  Irish  parliamentary  party  at  that  time  that 
a  young  American  received  from  the  regular  Repub- 
licans since  1908,  Even  less.  But  they  had  to  go 
somewhere.     They    flowed     away    from    politics, 

[  242  ] 


flowed  into  the  Gaelic  language  movement  and  the 
self-help  movement,  the  latter  covering  everything 
from  the  passive  resistance  of  early  Sinn  Fein  to  the 
self-help  of  the  literary  theatre  and  national  letters 
and  the  nonpolitical  self-help  of  agricultural  co- 
operation and  radical  labor.  All  these  activities 
seemed  rather  unimportant  to  the  men  at  Westmin- 
ster. No  member  of  parliament  got  it  into  his 
head  that  the  energy  of  the  nation  was  being  se- 
riously diverted  from  constitutional  interests. 

A  fighting  captain  like  Parnell  would  have  ar- 
rested this.  The  clash  of  his  steel  would  have 
stirred  young  Irish  blood.  But  when  John  Redmond 
became  leader  of  the  united  party  the  constitutional 
movement  did  not  become  a  national  inspiration  for 
young  Ireland.  Redmond  was  the  leader  of  a  party, 
not  the  leader  of  a  people. 

Redmond's  limitation 
To  put  home  rule  on  the  statute  books  was  no 
Ignoble  destiny  for  an  Irish  parliamentarian.  It 
meant  that  he  resisted  every  English  attempt  to  sub- 
stitute a  council  for  a  parliament,  had  kept  the  party 
free  from  those  obligations  which  are  incurred 
through  taking  personal  favors,  had  retained  intact 
and  unanimous  the  demand  of  the  voters  outside 
Orange  Ulster  for  a  measure  of  national  self-govern- 
ment. Horace  Plunkett  was  content  with  the  Union 
at  that  time,  and  blandly  minimized  home  rule.  His 
position  in  this  respect  gave  many  nationalists  an  un- 
fortunate idea  of  the  cooperative  movement.  Lord 
Dunraven  and  other  rectified  junkers  tried  hard  to 
win  the  landlords  to  the  people,  and  wanted  the 
people  to  qualify  their  hopes  for  the  sake  of  achlev- 

[  243  ] 


ing  this  object.  The  northern  Unionists  remained 
adamant.  In  spite  of  these  subversive  and  corrosive 
forces,  Redmond  held  to  his  principle  and  drove 
ahead.  The  fact  that  home  rule  won,  even  on  paper, 
was  a  gigantic  parliamentary  achievement.  It  meant 
that  the  liberalism  of  Englishmen  had  nominally 
triumphed,  that  an  empire  had  recognized  a  na- 
tionalism, that  a  victim  of  might  had  received  a 
measure  of  formal  restitution. 

But  it  was  only  on  paper,  and  there  Redmond  had 
failed.  A  man  of  legal  mind,  he  had  been  content 
to  throw  the  onus  of  carrying  home  rule  on  the 
British  government.  He  had  left  the  sources  of 
popular  opinion  to  take  care  of  themselves.  In  this 
he  proved  himself  the  parliamentarian  as  against 
the  popular  leader,  the  man  of  an  established  order 
as  against  the  creator,  the  man  of  decrees  as  against 
the  man  of  positive  will. 

REDMOND   AND   PARNELL 

This  was  the  difference  between  Redmond  and  Par- 
nell.  Parnell  knew  that  his  whole  strength  lay  in 
focussing  the  will  of  Ireland,  and  he  organized  that 
will  at  the  source.  When  he  spoke  to  England,  Ire- 
land spoke  to  England,  and  when  England  rejected 
him,  England  rejected  a  whole  people.  At  times 
Parnell  was  guilty  of  neglecting  his  duty,  and  at 
times  he  treated  his  party  like  dogs.  But  what  held 
the  party  together  was  a  leadership  that  had  the 
people  back  of  it,  that  estimated  with  ruthless  clarity 
the  sovereign  rights  of  the  people  and  asserted  those 
rights  regardless  of  every  solemn  and  sacred  British 
pretension.     What  had  Parnell  to  fear  from  Eng- 

[  244  ] 


land?  He  knew  the  moral  pretensions  of  the  Brit- 
ish empire  as  well  as  any  one,  but  he  had  an  eye 
for  facts,  he  saw  perfectly  clearly  the  wretched 
state  of  the  Irish  people,  the  economic  impossibility 
of  landlordism,  the  fatuity  of  governing  Ireland  from 
Westminster,  the  unutilized  solidarity  of  Ireland. 
He  handled  Ireland  like  a  wheelwright,  found  the 
hub  for  it,  fitted  the  spokes  of  it,  hooped  it  with  dur- 
able iron.  He  judged  the  moral  hospitality  of  Glad- 
stone as  a  general  would  judge  terrain.  The  estab- 
lished British  order  meant  nothing  to  him.  He 
strove  to  get  Ireland  back  of  him,  and  then  he  was 
able  to  talk  constitutionality  to  the  British  House  of 
Commons. 

With  this  characteristic,  Ulster  could  never  have 
deterred  Parnell.  Parnell  had  known  Sir  Edward 
Carson  from  the  time  he  was  a  member  of  the 
National  Liberal  Club.  He  had  known  him  when  he 
began  to  "  devil "  for  "  Peter  the  Packer  "  and  hunt 
the  tenant  hare  with  the  Castle  hounds.  There  is  no 
doubt  in  my  mind  that  long  before  Sir  Edward  Car- 
son got  his  rifles  from  Germany  Parnell  would  have 
carried  the  war  Into  Orange  Ulster.  Parnell  would 
have  gone  through  Edward  Carson  as  steel  goes 
through  paper.  He  would  have  grappled  with  the 
real  Orangeman  where  he  lives.  The  fate  of  Ire- 
land would  not  have  been  left  to  meddlesome 
duchesses,  retired  army  colonels,  junkers  in  the  de- 
feated House  of  Lords,  political  climbers  like  F.  E. 
Smith,  who  happened  to  be  In  the  opposition,  the  "  to- 
hell-with-the-pope  "  Idealists,  the  Belfast  chamber  of 
commerce.  The  people  of  Ireland  would  have  been 
made   completely   and   dangerously   alive   to   their 

[  245  ] 


liberties  during  those  years  that  Sir  Edward  Carson 
was  playing  the  game  of  British  toryism  and  North- 
cliffe  irresponsibility  in  Ireland.  It  was  not  for  noth- 
ing that  Parnell  had  studied  Ulster  in  the  days  of 
Randolph  Churchill.  He  was  fair  to  Ulster  and  re- 
spected it,  but  the  guns  were  not  made  that  could 
have  entered  Ulster  with  Immunity  in  Parnell's  reign. 
Parnell  knew  warfare  when  he  saw  it.  And  there 
would  have  been  an  answer  to  the  Ulster  banks  in 
the  south  of  Ireland,  to  the  Ulster  manufacturer  and 
the  British  manufacturer,  which  liberal  England  and 
unionist  Ireland  would  equally  clearly  have  under- 
stood. 

Had  John  Redmond  given  a  full  and  free  channel 
to  Irish  popular  will,  he  might  have  seen  home  rule 
established  before  he  died,  and  fathered  the  first 
home  rule  parliament.  The  real  reason  for  lament- 
ing this  failure  Is  the  subsequent  diffusion  of  Irish 
purpose.  Rebellion  Is  sometimes  an  attractive  es- 
cape from  life,  but  Parnell  understood  that  the  best 
place  to  utilize  the  rebellious  Impulse  was  Inside  the 
British  constitution,  and  nothing  but  his  downfall 
would  have  driven  young  Irishmen  to  Sinn  Fein.  It 
Is  the  tragedy  of  John  Redmond's  career  that  he  al- 
lowed constitutionalism  to  Impose  on  him,  to  dictate 
his  method,  to  hamper  his  will.  He  was,  for  an 
Irish  leader,  prematurely  conservative.  A  man  of 
courage  and  faith  and  rectitude,  he  made  the  one 
mistake  of  an  agitator.  He  accepted  the  established 
code  before  the  order  which  he  strove  for  was  es- 
tablished. 

Before  John  Redmond  died  he  knew  the  deepest 
bitterness  a  moderate  man  can  know,  the  bitterness 
of  halving  his  restraint  taken  as  weakness  and  his 
[  246  ] 


concessions  manipulated.  This  In  Itself  warned 
Irishmen  to  beware  of  restraint  and  concessions.  It 
pointed  to  extremes. 


[  247  1 


IX 

THE  INSURRECTION  IN  1916 

THE    "  OLD   STOCK  " 

IN  the  year  19 12  nearly  half  a  million  Irishmen 
signed  a  pledge  to  stand  together  in  opposing  home 
rule.  "  Signing  the  pledge  "  is  not  keeping  the 
pledge,  but  when  471,414  human  beings  affirm  a  po- 
litical conviction,  it  establishes  that  conviction  as 
politically  important.  In  the  supercilious  language 
of  Mr.  Balfour,  In  another  connection,  "  statesmen 
must  act  as  if  the  dream  were  fact." 

Ulster,  of  course,  was  the  backbone  of  this  cov- 
enant, but  outside  Ulster,  as  Sir  Reginald  Pole- 
Carew  and  the  Earl  of  WIcklow  have  indicated, 
there  has  always  been  a  minority  to  support  the 
Ulstermen.  The  sentiment  of  this  minority  after 
19 1 2  is  worth  recalling. 

First,  because  of  its  charming  simplicity,  let  me 
quote  the  view  of  an  American  girl  who  returned  to 
her  own  country  in  19 13  from  five  weeks'  hunting  in 
the  County  Cork.  "  Nobody  seems  to  want  home 
rule  in  the  south  of  Ireland,"  said  this  lady,  "  but  if 
Ulster  fights,  my  hunting  friends  In  the  south  will 
join  Ulster.  They  say  they  don't  want  to  be  stabbed 
in  their  beds." 

No  normal  person  wants  to  be  stabbed  In,  or  even 
out  of,  his  bed.     To  avoid  such  an  unpleasantness, 

[  248  ] 


one  might  easily  elect  to  fight  for  Ulster  against 
home  rule.  But  the  sporting  gentry  that  the  Amer- 
ican had  been  visiting  have  never  as  a  class  wanted 
home  rule.  It  annoys  them.  It  offends  their  sense 
of  values.  It  runs  counter  to  their  aptitudes  and 
their  taste.  They  cannot  imagine  that  anyone  could 
seriously  desire  an  innovation  so  risky,  so  provin- 
cial and  so  plebeian.  Moreover,  they  chat  with 
"  friends  "  of  theirs  among  the  farmers,  and  they 
quite  easily  conclude  that  the  farmers  are  politically 
satiated  and  content.  For  personal  charm  these 
Anglo-Irish  are  inestimable.  Politically,  they  are 
Infantile.  When  they  came  together  at  the  Dublin 
horse  show  and  at  Punchestown  races  during  this  pe- 
riod, they  settled  their  scores  with  the  Liberal  gov- 
ernment by  receiving  the  Liberal  lord  lieutenant  in 
stony  silence.  They  cut  him  !  This  dreadful  appli- 
cation of  the  boycott  had  been  maintained  for  years. 
When  the  horse-worshippers  went  home,  they  forgot 
politics  until  Ulster  asked  for  sympathy.  Then  a 
few  hundred  of  them  would  motor  in  to  some  Castle 
ballroom,  and  behind  closed  doors  pass  stern  reso- 
lutions against  home  rule.  The  only  hitch  to  such 
proceedings  would  possibly  be  the  refusal  of  the  local 
nationalist  brewery  to  lend  the  Marquis  the  barrels 
for  his  unionist  platform,  Sharman  Crawford's  brew- 
ery and  Captain  Craig's  distillery  being  too  far 
away  for  this  service.  But  the  hitch  would  never  be 
fatal.  The  rival  nationalist  brewery  would  prove 
obliging  and  lend  his  lordship  the  necessary  barrels. 
So  long  as  It  has  had  one  penny  to  put  on  another, 
the  Irish  country  house  has  subsisted  on  fox,  grouse, 
partridge,  bridge,  golf  and  horse.  Apart  from  its 
duties  as  magistrate  and  squire,  and  its  connection 

[  249  ] 


with  the  army  and  the  services  and  the  House  of 
Lords,  it  has  had  no  centrifugal  impulses.  When 
one  of  the  County  learned  that  her  friend  Lady 
Gregory  had  turned  to  writing  comedies,  for  exam- 
ple, she  revealed  her  class's  large  comprehension  of 
the  exigencies  of  life  by  sympathetically  remarking: 
"  She's  gettin'  too  old  to  hunt,  isn't  she?  "  Some- 
times beloved  by  the  people  and  nearly  always  amic- 
ably received,  this  section  of  the  unionist  aristocracy 
has  remained  astonishingly  separate,  aloof,  sinfully 
trivial  and  emptily  superior.  George  Russell  has 
delivered  the  just  verdict  on  them.  "  They  as  a 
class,  though  not  all  of  them,  were  scornful  or  neg- 
lectful of  the  workers  in  the  industry  by  which  they 
profited,  and  to  many  who  knew  them  in  their  pride 
of  place,  and  thought  them  all-powerful,  they  are 
already  becoming  a  memory,  the  good  disappearing 
together  with  the  bad." 

THE    SERIOUS    UNIONIST 

Passing  over  the  horse-worshippers,  there  comes 
the  more  serious  Unionist  attitude.  This  may  be 
put  down  as  concerned  imperialism,  in  the  good  and 
the  bad  sense.  The  reactionary  imperialist  pre- 
serves a  feudal  view  of  the  Irish  caitiff.  Observing 
Irish  debility,  he  ascribes  it  to  the  inherent  defects  of 
the  papist,  his  ignorance,  indolence  and  poverty. 
To  be  put  on  a  level  with  a  people  so  poor,  ignorant 
and  indolent  (or,  as  it  is  usually  expressed,  to  be 
"  placed  under  the  heel  of  a  parliament  in  Dublin  ") 
seems  to  this  urbane  gentleman  an  injustice  too  deep 
and  obvious  for  discussion.  In  addition,  he  believes 
that  the  Irish  nationalist  does  not  appreciate  the  em- 
pire, and  that,  therefore,  the  only  way  to  deal  with 

[  250  ] 


him  is  patiently  to  continue  remedial  government 
from  Westminster  and,  with  this  degree  of  responsi- 
bility, let  him  master  his  native  defects.  Moreover, 
this  unionist  genuinely  discounts  any  hope  of  good 
government  on  representative  principles  from  a  peo- 
ple so  patently  loyal  to  the  Roman  Catholic  church. 
The  progressive  element  among  unionists  is  much 
nearer  to  home  rule.  At  the  head  of  this  group  have 
been  landlords  and  business  men  with  their  fortunes 
willingly  staked  in  the  country.  The  spokesmen 
have  been  persons  of  public  spirit  like  Sir  Horace 
Plunkett  and  Lord  Dunraven.  Sir  Horace  Plunkett 
deserves  extremely  well  of  Ireland.  Before  the  col- 
lapse of  Parnellism,  he  developed  his  cooperative 
programme  for  farmers,  and  later  on  during  the 
Unionist  regime,  he  got  Catholic  and  Protestant  to- 
gether on  the  recess  committee,  out  of  which  splen- 
did creative  conference  came  the  department  of  agri- 
culture. With  George  Russell  to  interpret  the  move- 
ment and  penetrate  it  with  his  literary  genius,  co- 
operation has  proved  a  genuine  though  rather  limited 
success.  It  has  been  handicapped  by  two  things, — 
the  middleman  and  trader  antagonism  of  the  Nation- 
alist members  of  parliament  and  Sir  Horace  Plun- 
kett's  own  political  creed.  This  creed  was  enunci- 
ated In  a  thoroughly  well-meaning  book,  Ireland  In 
the  New  Century.  In  this  book,  dedicated  to  the 
memory  of  the  Unionist,  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  the  au- 
thor iterated  his  "  continued  opposition  to  home 
rule."  He  pressed  hard  the  conviction  that  "  If  the 
material  conditions  of  the  great  body  of  our  coun- 
trymen were  advanced,  If  they  were  encouraged  in 
Industrial  enterprises,  and  were  provided  with  prac- 
tical education  In  proportion  to  their  natural  intelll- 

[  251  ] 


gence,  they  would  see  that  a  political  development  on 
lines  similar  to  those  adopted  in  England,  was,  con- 
sidering the  necessary  relations  between  the  two 
countries,  best  for  Ireland,  and  then  they  would 
cease  to  desire  what  is  ordinarily  understood  as  home 
rule."  This  conviction  was  accompanied  by  much 
criticism  of  the  parliamentarians  and  the  Catholic 
church  and  a  free  assertion  of  the  moral  timidity  of 
Irish  character  and  the  weakness  of  Irish  fibre,  with 
many  mugwumpish  strictures  such  as  "  in  the  main," 
"  within  certain  limits,"  "  if  not  always  with,"  "  not 
in  any  marked  degree,"  *'  if,  however,  in  some 
cases." 

Sir  Horace  assured  his  readers  of  the  Irish  Na- 
tionalist politicians'  "  want  of  political  and  economic 
foresight."  "  The  influence  of  the  Irish  political 
leaders  has  neither  advanced  the  nation's  march 
through  the  wilderness  nor  taught  the  people  how  to 
dispense  with  manna  from  above  when  they  reach 
the  Promised  Land."  He  contrasted  the  Irish  un- 
favorably with  the  Scotch-Irish,  lamented  the  reputa- 
tion of  the  Irish  in  America,  pointed  out  the  number 
of  Catholic  Irish  girls  who  became  prostitutes  In 
America,  said  that  at  home  the  Catholic  Irish  were 
*'  apathetic,  thriftless,  and  almost  non-Industrial,  and 
that  they  especially  require  the  exercise  of  strength- 
ening influence  on  their  moral  fibre."  "  The  home 
of  the  strictly  civic  virtues  and  efiiclencles  Is  In  Prot- 
estant Ireland."  "  In  the  last  analysis  the  problem 
of  Irish  ineffectiveness  at  home  is  in  the  main  a  prob- 
lem of  character  —  and  of  Irish  character." 

Sir  Horace  Plunkett's  attitude  seems  irreproach- 
able to  the  good  imperialist.  To  the  nationalist  It 
recalls  the  ancient  ditty, 

[  252  ] 


Perhaps  it  was  right  to  dissemble  your  love, 
But  —  why  did  you  kick  me  down  stairs  ? 

The  moral  cowards  and  spineless  jellyfish  did  not 
cotton  to  Sir  Horace's  book.  John  Redmond,  who 
had  sat  on  the  recess  committee,  declared  his  own 
feelings.  "  I  myself.  Indeed,  at  one  time,  enter- 
tained some  belief  In  the  good  intentions  of  Sir 
Horace  Plunkett  and  his  friends,  but  recent  events 
have  entirely  undeceived  me;  and  Sir  Horace  Plun- 
kett's  recent  book,  full  as  It  Is  of  undisguised  con- 
tempt for  the  Irish  race,  makes  It  plain  to  me  that 
the  real  object  of  the  movement  In  question  Is  to 
undermine  the  National  Party  and  divert  the  minds 
of  our  people  from  home  rule,  which  Is  the  only 
thing  which  can  ever  lead  to  a  real  revival  of  Irish 
industries."  This  was  an  extremely  natural  conclu- 
sion on  the  part  of  a  political  leader,  considering  Sir 
Horace's  hope  that  his  own  movement  would  lead 
Irishmen  "  to  cease  to  desire  what  Is  ordinarily  un- 
derstood by  home  rule."  But  the  notion  that  Sir 
Horace  Plunkett  was  "  Insidious  "  betrayed  a  certain 
animus. 

A  more  thoroughly  unfortunate  book  than  Sir 
Horace's  could  hardly  be  Imagined.  It  seriously 
misunderstood  the  Parnell  movement.  It  showed  a 
shocking  tepidity  about  Irish  history.  With  the  best 
intention  In  the  world  It  took  exactly  the  wrong  tone, 
the  jarring  pedagogic  tone.  When  you  have  finally 
succeeded  In  impressing  on  a  man  that  his  moral  fibre 
Is  weak  and  that  his  character  Is  feeble,  what  have 
you  done  toward  personal  rehabilitation?  You 
have  convinced  him  that  he  does  not  possess  within 
himself  the  necessary  autonomic  gift,  that  he  has  no 

[  253  ] 


spiritual  capital,  that  every  failure  is  a  proof  of  in- 
herent deficiency,  that  nothing  can  possibly  cure  such 
deficiency,  and  that  each  failure  is  a  sign  that  effort 
must  always  be  unavailing  in  the  case  of  a  material 
so  shoddy.  Of  course,  Sir  Horace  had  no  desire  to 
criticize  destructively  but  that  was  his  effect.  To 
call  him  "  insidious  "  on  such  evidence  is  to  call  a 
sledge-hammer  insidious.  The  trouble  was.  Sir 
Horace  Plunkett  employed  this  sledge-hammer  for 
trepanning  a  head  full  of  nationalism,  and  was  then 
blandly  astonished  at  parliamentarian  fury.  But 
whatever  criticism  there  was  to  be  made  of  Sir  Hor- 
ace Plunkett,  no  one  could  deny  that  he  saw  Ireland 
as  a  unit  and  that,  when  he  interpreted  his  country 
abroad,  he  declared  "  unbounded  faith  in  the  latent 
capacities  "  of  his  countrymen. 

THE    ULSTER    BRAND 

Quite  different  from  this  was  the  Dublin  lawyer, 
Sir  Edward  Carson.  The  clue  to  Sir  Edward  Car- 
son is  not  stern  northern  Calvinism.  He  is  a  south- 
ern Unionist.  The  clue  to  him  is  British  as  well  as 
Irish.  It  is  his  identification  with  the  frustrated 
Tories  of  the  House  of  Lords  as  well  as  with  Belfast 
business  men.  But  the  home  rule  situation  requires 
above  everything  an  understanding  of  the  facts  about 
Belfast. 

To  judge  Belfast  fairly,  one  must  have  perfectly 
clear  standards.  Belfast  is  a  typical  capitalistic 
community.  Its  success  or  failure  must  be  measured 
accordingly.  Being  entirely  different  from  a  city 
like  Dublin,  a  direct  comparison  is  fatuous.  One  is 
the  home  of  productivity,  the  other  largely  a  dis- 
tributive agent.     But  the  fact  that  Dublin  obviously 

[  254  ] 


cannot  live  by  distribution  does  not  add  a  cubit  to 
Belfast's  stature.  The  vices  of  Belfast  cannot  en- 
hance Dublin,  neither  can  the  foulness  of  Dublin 
give  Belfast  glory.  The  vice  of  sectionalism  is  the 
vice  of  all  jealousy  —  we  resent  our  rival's  virtue  as 
an  indictment  of  our  own  inadequacy.  We  fear, 
and  therefore  advert  to,  competition.  The  point 
about  Belfast  is  this:  it  is,  for  reasons  not  under 
discussion,  an  industrial  community.  Dublin  and 
Belfast  symbolize  the  two  entirely  different  problems 
that  confront  Irish  economists  —  Belfast,  boasting 
of  its  wealth,  still  offers  a  typical  case  of  "  the  inhu- 
manity and  waste  of  modern  industry."  Dublin,  on 
the  contrary,  is  pre-capitalistic,  presenting  industry 
in  the  haphazard  and  unorganized  form, —  an  eco- 
nomic anomaly.  Its  inhumanity  and  waste  are  not 
so  deliberate  as  Belfast's,  but  they  are  fifty  times  as 
inevitable.  In  the  one  case,  a  practical  instrument  Is 
used  badly.  In  another  case,  an  impracticable  In- 
strument is  used  badly.  The  evils  of  Belfast  are 
like  the  choking  of  a  canal  through  carelessness, 
the  evils  of  Dublin  like  the  silting  of  a  meandering 
river.  To  correct  the  evils  of  Dublin  involves  not 
merely  clearing  the  silt,  but  making  the  river  a  canal. 
Belfast  has  already  canalized. 

Like  all  wealthy  communities  that  are  called 
"  young  "  because  they  have  risen  rapidly  to  power, 
Belfast  is  intensely  human  in  its  local  pride  —  the 
Chicago  of  Ireland,  it  attributes  Its  eminence  to  Its 
own  native  virtue.  It  surpasses  Dublin  as  Chicago 
surpasses  New  Orleans,  and  It  revels  in  comparison. 
*'  Belfast  has  no  natural  advantages.  It  was 
founded  on  a  mud  swamp.  It  had  no  deep  broad 
river.     The  Lough  was  open  to  every  storm  and 

[255  ] 


was  too  shallow  for  large  ships  to  approach  the  city. 
Yet  despite  all  these  disadvantages,  it  has  become 
the  largest,  most  industrious  and  wealthiest  city  in 
Ireland.     Why?" 

who's  who  in  ulster 

Proud  of  its  size,  its  valuation,  its  shipyards,  its 
Tobacco  King,  its  municipal  hospitals,  its  municipal 
gas,  Belfast  reproduces  the  exact  idiom  of  Chicago. 
It  tells  you  that  it  has  "  the  largest  ropeworks  in 
the  world."  It  tells  you  it  has  "  the  largest  dis- 
tillery in  the  world."  Like  a  schoolboy  with  biceps, 
it  exhibits  itself  for  the  awe  and  admiration  of  all. 
Mr.  Thomas  Sinclair,  an  Ulster  leader,  speaks  of 
Ulster  energy,  enterprise  and  Industry.  The  Mar- 
quis of  Londonderry  speaks  of  the  energy,  applica- 
tion, clearheadedness  and  hard  work  that  have  given 
Belfast  Its  proud  position  In  the  Industrial  and  ship- 
ping world.  And  admiration  It  exacts  from  the  Im- 
partial. "  The  city  of  his  idolatry,"  says  Mr. 
Sydney  Brooks,  "  Is  unquestionably  the  emblem  of 
a  magnificent  conquest  over  Inconceivable  odds. 
The  splendid  energy,  fearlessness,  force  and  tenacity 
which  have  made  Belfast  what  It  Is,  a  city  of  In- 
exhaustible Industrial  marvels,  are  qualities  not  to  be 
gainsaid.  Perhaps  nowhere  In  the  world  do  350,- 
000  people  produce  so  much  wealth  as  In  Belfast. 
Their  shipyards  and  linen-mills,  their  tobacco  fac- 
tories and  distilleries,  their  printing-works  and  rope 
factories,  make  up  a  great  and  Indisputable  record 
of  industrial  achievement." 

With  such  achievement  to  its  credit,  with  the  firm- 
ness and  self-reliance  that  achievement  breeds, 
elderly  Belfast  resents  with  hatred  and  scorn  the 

[  256  ] 


thought  of  association  with  what  it  considers  lazy, 
slatternly,  dreamy  southern  Ireland.  It  does  not 
actually  know  the  south  of  Ireland,  of  course.  In 
July,  1907,  for  example,  the  Great  Northern  rail- 
way booked  42  passengers  from  all  its  stations  to 
Cork  and  Killarney,  in  the  height  of  the  tourist  sea- 
son. Nor  does  elderly  Belfast  dwell  on  the  fact 
that  the  rateable  value  of  Belfast  was  only  £1,599,- 
603,  as  against  £1,136,969  for  Dublin;  and  that 
Dublin  with  its  suburbs  has  practically  the  same 
population  and  precisely  the  same  rateable  value. 
These  haughty  competitive  statistics  never  conde- 
scend to  all  the  humble  facts. 

Nor  when  Belfast  boasts  of  "  its  energy,  fear- 
lessness, force  and  tenacity  "  does  it  take  pains  to 
add  that  cheap  labor  is  its  principal  asset,  with  all 
the  consequent  evils.  In  giving  evidence  before  the 
committee  on  Irish  finance,  Mr.  J.  Milne  Barbour, 
whose  mills  employ  about  i,50'o  men  and  3,000 
women,  maintained  that  the  standard  of  living  has 
been  raised  in  Belfast.  "  I  can  remember  very  well 
seeing  the  workpeople  going  with  bare  feet  and  bare 
legs  to  and  from  their  work;  It  is  the  exception  to 
see  that  now."  But  when  he  was  asked  about  the 
insurance  bill  he  made  a  significant  admission:  "  I 
think  the  weekly  levy  Is  going  to  be  very  heavy, 
and  It  Is  going  to  hit  Belfast  especially  hard,  be- 
cause the  rate  of  wages  ruling  In  Belfast  Is  low  and, 
consequently,  the  employers'  contribution  will  be 
higher  there  probably  than  In  England."  Mr.  Bar- 
bour, of  course,  was  opposed  to  home  rule.  He 
could  not  help  believing  It  might  disturb  the  feeling 
of  confidence  of  the  London  financial  houses.  "  In 
the  North  of  Ireland  we  are  dependent  very  largely 

[  257  ] 


on  London  for  our  credits."  The  London  financial 
houses  are  against  home  rule. 

These  large  facts  as  to  labor  in  Belfast  are  a 
matter  of  government  record.  Of  the  71,161  per- 
sons in  the  linen  and  hemp  industry,  the  average  an- 
nual wage  was  thirty  pounds.  The  net  output  was 
sixty-one  pounds  per  person  employed.  And  the 
flax,  of  course,  no  longer  came  mainly  from  Ulster 
farmers.  Before  the  war,  80%  of  it  was  imported 
from  Russia  and  Belgium.  St.  John  Ervine,  "  a  na- 
tive of  Belfast  and  a  member  of  a  Protestant  family, 
the  majority  of  whom  either  were  or  are  connected 
with  the  Orange  institution,"  pointed  out  some  years 
ago  that  "  it  has  been  established  beyond  doubt  by 
a  government  committee  of  inquiry  that  there  is  an 
enormous  amount  of  sweated  labor  in  Belfast.  .  .  . 
The  hours  of  labor  in  Belfast  mills  are,  as  a  rule, 
from  6  .-30  a.  m.  to  6  p.  m.  The  bulk  of  the  women 
working  in  these  mills  are  permanently  unhealthy. 
They  suffer  from  anaemia,  debility,  and  ulcerated 
stomachs.  ...  I  may  add  that  the  conditions  of  em- 
ployment make  health  absolutely  impossible  for  these 
women." 

Still  "  the  whore  of  Babylon,  the  kirk  malignant  " 
is  always  a  good  battle-cry  in  Belfast,  where  quarter 
of  the  population  is  the  underselling  labor  of 
Catholics.  And  when  the  parliament  act  took  away 
the  last  barricade  of  the  Unionists  against  home 
rule,  the  House  of  Lords  naturally  adjourned  to 
Ulster  to  raise  troops.  These,  not  the  Nationalist 
Irish,  were  Germany's  primary  allies  in  the  British 
Isles.  Cannon,  machine  guns  and  rifles  were 
shipped  to  Ireland.  Every  possible  descendant  of 
the    implanted    settlers    of    Ireland    was    rallied. 

[  258  ] 


Large  numbers  were  openly  recruited  and  armed. 
The  Ulster  leaders  pleaded  they  were  loyal  but  they 
insisted  that  the  Liberals  of  England  did  not  and 
could  not  speak  for  the  empire.  They  were  just 
like  the  Nationalists  in  so  far  as  the  only  English 
authority  they  recognized  was  an  authority  like- 
minded  to  themselves.  Lord  Northclifte  joined 
with  Lord  Londonderry  and  Lord  Abercorn  and 
Lord  Willoughby  de  Broke  and  Lord  Roberts  and 
Sir  Edward  Carson  and  Bonar  Law  and  F.  E.  Smith 
to  advise  and  stimulate  rebellion.  Some  British 
generals  in  the  regular  army,  to  the  delight  of  Ger- 
many, were  definitely  available  as  leaders.  A  pro- 
visional government,  with  Carson  as  its  premier, 
was  arranged  for  in  191 1.  The  Unionist  and 
Orange  organizations  pledged  themselves  that  under 
no  conditions  would  they  acknowledge  a  home  rule 
government  or  obey  its  decrees.  In  19 12  the 
Solemn  Covenanters  pledged  themselves  "  to  refuse 
to  recognize  its  authority."  Later  on,  £1,000,000 
was  raised  for  ambulance  and  army  Insurance. 
During  this  period  the  government  shifted  from  one 
foot  to  the  other,  but  took  no  action.  There  were 
no  nationalists  under  arms. 

THE    SOLEMN    COVENANT 

I  have  examined  with  great  interest  the  figures 
pubhshed  by  Sir  Edward  Carson  in  connection  with 
the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant.  In  Ulster  alone, 
according  to  Sir  Edward,  447,205  men  and  women 
signed  this  earnest  pledge.  The  enrollment  began 
in  September,   19 12,  and  the  figures  were  issued  in 

1913- 

Scattered  over  the  nine  counties  In  Ulster,  there 

[  259  ] 


are  840,000  Presbyterians,  Episcopalians  and 
Methodists.  It  is  fair  to  assume  that  it  was  from 
these,  and  not  from  the  Catholics,  that  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenanters  were  recruited.  But  not 
all  of  this  number  was  eligible  to  sign.  One  may 
assume  that  Sir  Edward  excluded  the  senile  and  in- 
fantile. Taking,  then,  every  single  male  and  female 
between  17  and  70  years  in  Protestant  Ulster,  we 
find  a  total  of  525,065  persons.  Out  of  this  total, 
according  to  Sir  Edward,  447,204  signed  the  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant. 

Without  subtracting  a  single  criminal,  illiterate, 
lunatic,  invalid  or  Protestant  Liberal,  you  find  that 
90%  of  the  Protestant  males  between  17  and  70 
pledges  themselves  to  "  use  all  means  "  to  defeat 
home  rule,  and  80%  of  the  women  associated  them- 
selves with  the  men. 

I  do  not  suppose  that  in  the  history  of  the  world 
such  a  claim  as  this  has  ever  been  made  before. 
I  do  not  suppose  that  mice  would  petition  against 
cats  in  such  proportion.  At  the  last  general  election 
in  Ulster  there  were  at  least  four  counties  where 
20%  of  the  rural  Unionists  did  not  go  to  the  polls, 
yet  this  Solemn  League  and  Covenant  reached  four 
times  as  many  persons  as  the  total  enfranchised 
Unionist  vote.  I  hope  the  document  will  be  one  day 
enshrined  In  the  British  Museum  —  with  a  note  to 
the  astounding  effect  that  out  of  447,204  alleged 
Covenanters,  less  than  10%  (about  40,000)  volun- 
teered up  to  19 1 6  to  save  the  empire  which  they  so 
passionately  loved  in  times  of  peace.  This  fact 
shows  that  the  loyalties  of  Ulster  were  organized 
not  for  the  empire  at  all  but  for  a  strictly  local 
prejudice. 

[  260  ] 


The  conviction  which  this  particular  pledge  af- 
firmed is  that  home  rule  would  prove  financially  dis- 
astrous, religiously  subversive,  civilly  destructive 
and  imperially'  perilous  for  Ulstermen.  It  was  a 
serious  belief  and  I  think  it  would  be  wrong  to  be- 
little it.  A  profound  conviction  abides  in  Presby- 
terian Ulster  and  the  men  of  Presbyterian  Ulster 
gave  it  a  body  and  a  voice.  They  proved  to  the 
world  that  they  have  a  will  of  their  own,  that  they 
know  their  own  will,  and  that  they  will  always 
take  good  care  to  make  the  world  know  It.  Organ- 
ized will  is  an  immense  power  in  constitutional 
countries.  Ulster  possessed  a  definitely  organized 
will.  Its  cool  disregard  of  restrictions  as  to  arms 
drew  a  parallel  between  themselves  and  the  previous 
revolutionist  of  the  South.  In  a  world  of  hard 
facts,  the  Ulstermen  proved  that  they  knew  how 
many  beans  make  five. 

-"  Success  confers  every  right  in  this  enlightened 
age;  wherein  for  the  first  time,  it  has  come  to  be 
admitted  and  proclaimed  in  set  terms,  that  Success 
Is  Right,  and  Defeat  is  Wrong."  So  said  the 
preface  of  the  Jail  Journal.  But  John  Mitchel 
would  have  given  ten  more  years  as  a  convict  to  have 
carried  treasonable  intimidation  to  the  lengths  that 
Belfast  went  since  19 12.  An  Ulsterman  himself, 
he  would  have  admired  the  skill  with  which  Ulster 
Imposed  on  flabby  Liberalism. 

The  home  rule  bill  comprises,  among  other 
things,  a  symposium  of  reassurance  to  Ulster.  It 
chains  Ireland  up  to  the  noblest  principles  of  civic 
and  religious  freedom.  Imperial  supremacy  and  fiscal 
Impotence.  "  Not  worth  the  paper  they  are  written 
on,"  growls  Ulster.     It  believes  the  morals  of  Eng- 

[  261  ] 


llsh  Liberals  to  be  the  morals  of  Bethmann-Hollweg. 

There  is  a  good  deal  of  nonsense  in  the  Solemn 
Covenant.  This  was  not  important  to  the  angry 
and  humorless  men  who  signed  it,  nor  does  the 
precise  language  of  any  pledge  repay  a  purist's 
scrutiny.  A  Solemn  Covenant  is  underwritten  in 
the  same  trusting  spirit  as  an  express  contract  or  a 
lease.  We  sign  it  if  it  suits  our  necessity.  But, 
while  it  is  an  acceptable  instrument  of  organized 
will,  it  may  well  be  examined  for  what  Mr.  Graham 
Wallas  calls  "  organized  thought."  As  organized 
thought  it  reveals  an  astonishing  degree  of  irrever- 
ence and  dishonesty.  It  pretends  that  God  is  closely 
Identified  with  the  Belfast  Chamber  of  Commerce. 
It  says  nothing  about  its  business  judgment  as  to  the 
Inadvisability  of  home  rule,  but  is  convinced  "  in 
conscience  "  that  it  will  be  disastrous  to  the  well- 
being  of  Ulster.  Under  all  the  flummery,  however, 
there  is  a  genuine  determination  and  it  is  with  this, 
not  with  "  the  sure  confidence  that  God  will  defend 
the  right,"  that  the  democratic  Irishman  is  con- 
cerned. 

The  essence  of  the  determination  is  that  the 
native  Irish  be  given  no  chance  to  retaliate  on  Ulster. 
The  minority  of  Ulstermen  —  St.  John  Ervine  and 
Robert  Lynd  testify  for  them  —  repudiate  that  fear. 
Speaking  in  London  in  19 12,  an  Ulsterman,  Canon 
A.  L.  Lilley,  pointed  out  that  there  was  no  practical 
reason  for  retaliation.  He  said  to  his  fellow 
Ulstermen:  "You  know  that  in  all  these  counties 
the  Protestants  and  Catholics  live  side  by  side  with 
one  another;  that,  except  in  the  towns,  and  especially 
in  the  city  of  Belfast,  there  is  no  segregation  of  the 
members    of    the    rival    religious    communities    in 

[  262  ] 


separate  districts.  And  you  know,  too,  that,  with 
the  same  exception,  they  are  all  alike  members  of 
the  same  social  class,  and  engaged  In  the  same  In- 
dustries. ...  I  think  I  have  shown  that  the  oppor- 
tunities for  Indirect  pressure  upon  a  discrimination 
against  the  Protestant  population  of  Ulster  are  so 
remote  that  the  fears  grounded  upon  their  supposed 
existence  may  be  described  as  In  the  last  degree 
chimerical.  .  .  .  The  truth  is  that  Ulster  is  hag- 
ridden by  the  prejudices  of  a  bygone  time.  It  does 
not  quite  realize  that  we  are  living  in  the  twentieth 
century.  It  lives  with  the  prejudices  and  self-sug- 
gested fears  derived  from  the  sixteenth  and  seven- 
teenth centuries  and  the  wars  of  religion.  The 
greatest  blessing  to  which  we  can  look  forward  In 
a  self-governing  Ireland  is  that  those  fears  will  be 
finally  allayed  and  those  prejudices  finally  eradicated 
by  the  mutual  understanding  and  tolerance  which 
only  the  partnership  of  all  In  the  work  of  National 
regeneration  is  at  all  likely  to  procure."  For  all 
Canon  LlUey,  the  fear  was  and  is  potent,  and  It  is 
Sir  Edward  Carson's  stock-in-trade. 

"  Ulster,"  says  Sir  Edward,  "  sees  in  Irish  nation- 
alism a  dark  conspiracy,  buttressed  upon  crime  and 
inciting  to  outrage,  maintained  by  ignorance  and 
pandering  to  superstition." 

REBELLION   IN    ULSTER 

The  solid  backing  behind  the  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant,  however,  was  the  junker  and  unionist 
high  command  of  the  British  army.  In  March, 
19 14,  came  the  crisis.  The  London  Times  sent  a 
correspondent  to  Ulster.  "  In  almost  every  house 
which  the  writer  visited  he  found  rifles  and  pistols," 

[  263  ] 


"  The  proclamation  which  forbids  the  importation 
of  arms,"  he  said,  "  is  considered  in  Ulster  to  be 
ultra  vires  and  its  legality  will  be  shortly  tested 
in  the  courts."  The  importation  of  arms  from  Ger- 
many and  Italy  had  gone  on  unimpeded  by  the  gov- 
ernment. On  March  20,  19 14,  Sir  Edward  Carson, 
made  a  speech  in  England  before  departing  for 
Ulster.  Mr.  Churchill,  he  declared,  "  has  told 
us  that  the  government  have  said  their  last  word  in 
the  offers  they  have  made,  and  he  was  backed  up  by 
that  superb  member  from  West  Belfast  [Mr. 
Devlin],  at  his  Sunday  meeting.  We  have  it  now 
from  the  prime  minister  that  this  is  the  last  word. 
Very  well,  if  it  is  the  last  word,  then  I  tell  him  to 
read  the  first  lord's  speech  In  which  he  said  that 
I  and  others  were  guilty  of  treasonable  conspiracy, 
and  let  them  come  and  try  conclusions  with  us.  The 
government  have  been  up  to  this  time  on  this  ques- 
tion a  government  of  cowards.  They  have  not  had 
the  courage  to  deal  with  what  the  first  lord  of  the 
admiralty  now  says  was  a  treasonable  conspiracy. 
What  right  had  they  to  let  It  go  on  for  two  years?  " 
On  March  25,  19 14,  It  was  reported  In  the 
London  Times  that  General  Gough,  In  the  presence 
of  Lord  Roberts,  had  confronted  General  French 
with  a  written  guarantee  engaging  that  the  troops 
of  the  Irish  command  should  not  be  used  against 
Ulster.  General  French,  the  report  said,  signed 
this  guarantee.  Twelve  days  before,  on  March  13, 
at  the  Ritz  Hotel,  a  dinner  of  a  hundred  Unionists 
greeted  Sir  Edward,  and  he  was  given  an  inscribed 
sword.  The  sword,  an  infantry  fighting  sword, 
said,  "  Presented  to  Edward  Carson  by  friends  of 
Ulster   in   sure    confidence    that   God   will    defend 

[  264  ] 


the    right."     God,    Sir    Edward    and    the    Rltz! 

In  Belfast  Sir  Edward  Carson  was  met  by  a  regi- 
ment of  volunteers.  On  March  21,  the  volunteers 
were  reported  to  be  mobilized. 

In  spite  of  this  defiance  the  government  refused 
to  abandon  the  home  rule  measure  and  in  April, 
1914,  Mr.  Asquith  promised  to  vindicate  the  law* 
The  government  actually  started  troops  to  Ulster. 
Then  opposition  intensified.  Mr.  Balfour  inveighed 
against  the  proposal  to  use  troops.  The  army  con- 
sulted with  Carson.  Generals  French  and  Ewart 
resigned. 

About  this  period,  with  Mr.  Asquith  and  Mr. 
Birrell  failing  to  put  England's  pledges  to  the  proof, 
the  National  Volunteers  in  the  south  were  being 
organized  at  last.  Mr.  Asquith  temporized  further. 
At  his  behest  John  Redmond  peremptorily  assumed 
control  of  the  Volunteers.  Their  selected  leader 
was  Professor  MacNelll,  a  foremost  spirit  In  the 
non-political  Gaelic  revival.  There  was  formal 
harmony  until  the  European  war  was  declared,  when 
Mr.  Redmond  sought  to  utIHze  the  National 
Volunteers  for  recruiting.  This  move  made  definite 
the  purely  national  purposes  of  the  Irish  Volunteers. 

Four  events  occurred  In  rapid  succession  to  de- 
stroy the  Irish  Volunteers'  confidence  In  English 
authority.  These  were  decisive  events  and  yet 
events  over  which  the  Irish  Volunteers  could  have 
no  control. 

On  July  loth,  19 14,  armed  Ulster  Volunteers 
marched  through  Belfast  and  Sir  Edward  Carson 
held  the  first  meeting  of  his  provisional  government. 

On  July  26th,  19 14,  the  British  troops  killed 
three  persons   and  wounded  sixty  persons  because 

[  265  ] 


rowdies  had  thrown  stones  at  them  In  Dublin,  subse- 
quent to  their  futile  attempt  to  intercept  the  land- 
ing of  Irish  Volunteer  arms,  from  a  ship  at  Howth. 

On  September  19,  19 14,  the  home  rule  bill  was 
signed,  but  Its  operation  Indefinitely  suspended. 

In  May,  1915,  Sir  Edward  Carson  became  a 
member  of  the  British  cabinet. 

The  two  flagrant  events  In  this  list  of  four  were 
Sir  Edward  Carson's  appointment  to  the  cabinet, 
in  sheer  contempt  of  nationalist  Ireland,  and  the 
slaughter  of  Dublin  citizens  by  British  soldiers. 
The  radical  Irish  papers  had  seen  British  soldiers 
kill  Dublin  citizens  on  the  eve  of  the  world  war, 
and  they  did  not  conceal  their  passionate  anger. 
"  So  ends  the  story,"  said  the  weekly  paper  Sinn 
Fein  after  the  inquest.  *'  Three  of  the  unarmed 
mere  Irish  were  shot  dead  In  cold  blood  and  no- 
body Is  going  to  suffer  for  it."  *'  The  victims  of 
Sunday's  massacre,"  said  An  Claidheamh  Soluis, 
"  were  murdered  because  they  dared  to  express  their 
anger  and  indignation  at  the  action  of  the  regi- 
ment known  as  the  King's  Own  Scottish  Borderers 
in  attempting  to  disarm  the  Volunteers.  The  armed 
cowards  who  fled  before  the  stand  of  the  Dublin 
Volunteers  at  Clontarf,  shot  down  the  unarmed 
crowd  in  their  panic-stricken  retreat  through  the 
city.  ...  In  November  last,  when  Eoln  MacNeill 
and  Padralc  MacPIarals  [Pearse]  advocated  in  An 
iClaidheamh  the  arming  of  Irishmen,  some  timid 
friends  rebuked  us  for  voicing  a  policy  of  '  blood 
and  thunder.'  Today  the  right  to  bear  arms  has 
been  won,  and  Ireland  is  not  only  a  nation,  but  she 
counts  as  a  nation  In  the  councils  of  Europe."     "  Let 

[  266  ] 


the  26th  of  July  be  noted  in  the  Calendar  of  the 
Irish  Nation,"  said  Irish  Freedom,  "  for  on  that 
day  the  Volunteer  Movement  was  formally  and  ef- 
fectively baptized,  baptized  in  the  blood  of  the 
Volunteers  —  blood  also  of  British  Soldiery.  For 
the  first  time  since  Fenianism  .  .  ."  and  so  on.  "  It 
is  a  great  thing  and  a  heartening  thing,  to  bring  the 
arms  safe  into  Dublin  City.  The  thought  of  arms 
and  the  touch  of  arms  have  made  Ireland  into  the 
thing  we  dreamed  of.  And  the  dawn  is  very  near 
now." 

REBELLION    IN    LEINSTER 

Yet  the  Insurrection  of  19 16  came  as  incredible 
to  most  Irishmen.  Clear  though  these  warnings 
that  heralded  it,  widespread  though  the  arrests  that 
followed  it,  and  drastic  the  overhauling  of  Irish 
homes  from  coast  to  coast,  it  was  a  sharp  surprise 
to  the  majority  of  the  inhabitants.  It  was  too  much 
out  of  their  ordinary  calculations  to  seem  believable. 
Its  sources,  concealed  from  the  general  run  of  ob- 
servers, were  sufficiently  remote  to  have  appeared 
unimportant  to  persons  so  well  acquainted  with  Irish 
sentiment  as  Mr.  Redmond,  or  so  well  acquainted 
with  official  reports  as  Mr.  Birrell.  That  there 
could  be  so  much  resolute  spirit  In  Dublin,  that  there 
was  such  energy  to  liberate  in  physical  flame  and 
spiritual  incandescence,  was  a  mystery  to  others 
than  the  authorities.  There  was  ample  excuse  for 
any  man  to  disbelieve  that  a  rebellion  could  actually 
happen.  If  the  fact  of  Insurrection  were  not  patent, 
men  might  still  look  over  anaemic  Ireland  and  pro- 
claim it  impossible.     If  you  had  said  it  was  im- 

[  267  ] 


possible  early  in  191 6  there  would  have  been  Iiish- 
men  everywhere,  all  of  them  calling  themselves 
Nationalists,  to  agree. 

Calling  a  rebellion  a  "  riot  "  is  one  way  to  soothe 
people's  nerves.  Immediately  after  the  outbreak 
in  19 16  there  was  an  attempt  to  minimize  it.  This 
came  from  the  simple  human  impulse  to  subdue 
facts  to  one's  own  designs.  Men  in  parliament  like 
John  Redmond  and  Mr.  Asquith  and  Mr.  Birrell 
who  had  worked  hard  to  preserve  the  Irish  pro- 
gramme still  worked  hard  to  preserve  Irish  appear- 
ances. Those  appearances,  however,  could  not  be 
saved  by  words.  They  were  shot  to  pieces  in  the 
streets  of  Dublin.  It  was  convenient  at  the  time 
to  speak  of  "  rioters,"  to  compare  the  Dublin  insur- 
rection to  the  Sidney  street  scuffle.  But  men  who 
scuffle  with  authority  do  not  bring  the  bloodiest  of 
vengeance  on  their  heads.  It  was  not  the  action  of 
the  Irish  rebels  that  sealed  their  seriousness  but 
the  action  of  the  British  and  Irish  authorities. 
Rioters  do  not  drive  a  great  and  stable  government 
to  extreme  measures.  The  exigent  killing  of  a  score 
of  Irish  leaders,  the  deportation  of  hundreds  of 
citizens  from  far  and  near,  the  thrusting  of  law 
into  the  hands  of  the  military,  conclusively  affirmed 
whether  the  outbreak  was  a  rebellion  or  a  riot.  To 
call  it  anything  but  a  rebellion  is  to  attempt  a  tedious 
lie. 

The  leaders  of  the  rebellion,  it  was  said,  were 
not  substantial  nor  representative  men  and  their 
followers  were  plainly  "  dupes."  On  a  point  such 
as  this  it  is  hard  to  be  fair.  It  is  seldom  likely  that 
men  who  conspire  against  an  established  government 
will  have  previously,  under  that  established  govern- 

l  268  ] 


ment,  become  eminent  in  estate  or  repute.  The 
history  of  Russian  revolutions  illustrates  this  truism. 
These  particular  rebels  were  not  well-off.  Aside 
from  this,  however,  they  were  men  of  reputation 
in  their  city.  They  were  not  rabble-leaders  or  mem- 
bers of  a  rabble  themselves.  The  loss  of  civilian 
life  caused  intense  bitterness  and  it  was  freely  de- 
clared that  the  first  occupation  of  the  rebels  was 
the  callous  slaughter  of  unarmed  British  soldiers 
who  happened  to  be  on  furlough  in  Dublin. 
This,  it  was  confidentially  reported  to  the  United 
States,  was  the  real  crime  of  the  leaders  and  the  real 
reason  they  were  executed.  It  was  an  empty  slander. 
The  street-fighting  made  pitiful  and  irreparable 
mistakes.  So  did  the  attempt  to  suppress  it.  The 
fact  remains  that  the  rebellion  was  not  the  work  of 
a  mob  and  had  strangely  few  incidents  of  outrage. 
The  mistakes  on  the  rebel  side  might  have  been 
more  insisted  upon,  however,  but  for  the  killing  of 
three  unarmed  and  guiltless  journalists  at  the  com- 
mand of  an  officer.  With  a  cynical  disregard  of 
justice  and  international  honor  this  man  was  set  free 
after  a  few  months'  confinement  as  a  "  lunatic." 
No  case  so  clear  as  his  was  ever  brought  forward 
against  the  rebels. 

In  one  sense,  the  rebellion  was  not  national.  It 
did  not  engage  the  bourgeois  political  organizations. 
It  did  not  enlist  the  multitude  of  the  farmers.  It 
enrolled  at  best  a  small  numerical  proportion  of 
the  people.  At  the  height  of  it  the  country  was 
neither  aflame  nor  paralyzed.  It  was  still  eating  its 
regular  meals  and  holding  its  fairs  and  milking  its 
cows.  The  rebellion  did  not  halt  the  streams  or 
disturb  the  ploughboy's  sleep.     But  in  another  sense 

[  269  ] 


it  was  vitally  national.  It  was  national  in  its  genesis 
and  its  object.  It  had  more  than  physical  signifi- 
cance. It  sprang  from  deep  and  wide  convictions. 
It  replenished  those  convictions  in  countless  hearts 
with  many  living  sacrifices.  By  their  collision  with 
the  British  government  the  rebels  put  one  concep- 
tion of  nationalism  to  the  test,  and  renewed  every 
other  conception  of  it.  It  is  with  the  irrevocable  and 
staggering  fact  of  their  armed  revolt,  indeed,  that 
new  considerations  of  Ireland  are  now  bound  to 
start. 

THE    EXECUTIONS 

What  identified  all  of  Ireland  with  the  rebellion 
was  the  cold  slaughters  by  the  military  tribunal  in 
Dublin.  Against  the  background  of  the  European 
war  the  revolt  demanded  of  British  statesmanship 
that  it  should  be  held  up  as  a  tiny  spurt  of  insanity. 
John  Redmond  had  proved  on  the  instant  that  he 
was  ready  to  detach  his  Ireland  from  the  rebellion. 
He  called  the  Sinn  Fein  rebels  his  enemies.  He  de- 
nounced them  as  misguided  and  insane.  But  the 
military  tribunal  did  the  one  thing  that  forced  all  Ire- 
land to  see  the  rebellion  in  the  perspective  of  Irish 
history.  It  exacted  its  pound  of  flesh.  Pearse,  the 
passionate  teacher  of  Gaelic;  MacDonagh,  intro- 
spective, overworked,  scrupulous,  the  mild  poet  en- 
wrapped for  several  years  in  the  training  of  Vol- 
unteers; Plunkett,  so  ill  that  he  was  held  back  at 
Ellis  Island  the  previous  August;  Connolly,  the  labor 
leader  who  was  leaving  a  wife  and  eight  children; 
Clark,  the  old  Fenian  tobacconist;  Pearse's  young 
brother  the  sculptor;  O'Hanrahan,  Daly,  Major 
McBride;   these  were   the   insane   and   the  wicked. 

[  270  ] 


They  were  given  to  Ireland  and  to  Irish  history, 
the  blood  sacrifices  of  being  national,  when  they 
were  blindfolded  by  the  soldiers  and  stood  against 
a  wall  and  shot  dead. 

They  died  proudly  and  gladly.  They  had  a  clear 
faith  and  they  expected  to  die.  "  Do  we  not  boast," 
wrote  Pearse  a  few  weeks  before  the  rising,  "  of  our 
loyalty  and  love  for  the  Dear  Dark  Head?  Is  It 
fear  that  deters  us  from  such  an  enterprise?  Away 
with  such  fears.  Cowards  die  many  times,  the 
brave  only  die  once.  It  is  admitted  that  nothing  but 
a  revolution  can  now  save  the  historic  Irish  nation 
from  becoming  a  mere  appanage,  a  Crown  Colony 
of  the  British  Empire.  We  do  not  desire  such  a 
consummation  of  the  Island  of  Saints  and  Scholars, 
the  land  of  the  O'Neills  and  the  O'Donnells,  the 
land  for  which  countless  have  suffered  and  died." 

Those  Saints  and  Scholars  may  not  seem  real  but 
few  can  read  Pearse's  words  without  feeling  his  con- 
secration to  historic  Ireland.  The  men  in  khaki 
who  judged  him  could  not  understand  this.  They 
could  not  understand  what  the  wise  leaders  In  South 
Africa  understood  In  dealing  with  De  Wet.  They 
could  not  see  that  vengeance  was  vindication.  The 
entrenchment  of  Sir  Edward  Carson  In  the  heart 
of  privilege  was  too  glaring.  Only  from  the  nation- 
alists they  took  an  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a 
tooth,  but  this  made  their  justice  an  Injustice.  Only 
by  a  weapon  of  the  spirit  could  they  have  encount- 
ered the  claims  of  Pearse's  spirit.  They  killed  his 
body,  but  gave  the  precious  part  of  him  a  national 
immortality. 

Ireland  to  me  is  a  sad,  wet,  empty  country, —  a 
country  of  frustrated  natives  and  detached,  patronlz- 

[  271  ] 


ing,  smart,  unsympathetic  English  people.  The 
English,  or  Anglo-Irish,  are  in  Ireland  but  not  of  It. 
To  submit  to  their  slow  and  steady  pressure  is  un- 
desirable, but  they  pervade  Ireland  with  their  assur- 
ance, their  monied  superiority,  their  privilege. 
They  stifle  even  the  claims  of  Ireland.  It  is  only  a 
nature  capable  of  ecstasy  like  Pearse's  that  can  rise 
above  these  sodden  commonplaces,  and  connect 
himself  with  "  the  O'Neills  and  the  O'Donnells." 
To  give  the  ecstasy  a  common  habiliment  he  had  to 
prove  the  English  his  nation's  persecutor  and  to  be 
shot  down  after  a  brief  sacrificial  hour. 

For  a  few  years,  beyond  doubt,  Pearse  and  Mac- 
Donagh  and  Plunkett  had  drifted  toward  this  re- 
bellion. In  a  civilized  country  they  would  have 
found  another  ideal.  They  would  have  been  busy 
thinking  and  writing  on  something  beyond,  or  out- 
side, a  national  plane.  But  in  Ireland  they  had  to 
choose  between  a  subtle  colonial  subservience  and  a 
monstrous  nationalism.  They  were  too  gallant  not 
to  choose  the  nationalism.  Yeats  and  Hyde  and 
George  Russell  set  them  a  certain  example.  Those 
men  could  function,  in  spite  of  England.  But 
Pearse  and  MacDonagh  and  Plunkett  were  intensely 
Catholic  and  thus  close  to  the  tradition  of  the  people. 
It  was  part  of  their  fierce  loyalty  not  to  find  a  way 
out,  like  Douglas  Hyde's  non-partisan  Gaelic 
League  or  Yeats'  non-partisan  aestheticism  or  Rus- 
sell's non-partisan  cooperative  ideal.  They  shared 
the  disabilities  of  being  nationalist  In  their  own 
country  too  well  to  wish  for  a  dispensation.  It  was 
easy  for  absentees  like  Shaw  or  Oscar  Wilde  to  go 
to  London  to  become  detached  and  non-national. 
But  cultivated  young  CathoHcs,  shy  and  ascetic  and 

[  272  ] 


patriotic,  had  a  somewhat  different  consciousness  of 
the  Irish  people.  Being  Catholic,  identified  these 
aspiring  youths  with  a  mercilessly  unremitting  na- 
tionalism. It  forced  them,  proud  and  isolated,  to 
dwell  with  burning  zeal  on  a  history  tragically  their 
own. 

CYCLOPS 

The  early  days  of  the  Irish  Volunteer  movement 
must  have  been  an  extraordinary  revelation  to  these 
young  men.  No  one  suspected  the  latent  spirit  of 
militarism  in  the  Catholic  part  of  Ireland.  It  was 
unpredictable.  But  nothing,  not  the  Gaelic  League 
in  its  most  ardent  days,  brought  young  Irishmen  to- 
gether so  spontaneously  and  happily  as  the  chance 
to  drill  and  to  train.  Under  MacNeill,  the  Bel- 
fast vice-president  of  the  Gaelic  League,  the  Vol- 
unteers imbibed  a  real  spirit.  But  the  instinct  for 
arms  was  the  marvel.  One  thinks  of  the  oppor- 
tunity that  Daniel  O'Connell,  hater  of  the  French 
Revolution,  refused  to  consider. 

Sir  Roger  Casement,  more  romantic  than  Cun- 
ninghame-Graham,  came  into  the  later  organizing. 
But  the  first  work  was  done  by  these  younger  men. 
Carson  was  largely  a  joke  in  19 13  in  the  south  of 
Ireland.  Only  Catholics  who  had  lived  in  Belfast 
could  take  the  Northerns  seriously.  And  never  was 
there  acrimony  between  the  Irish  and  the  Ulster 
Volunteers.  It  was  England,  in  the  end,  that  figured 
in  the  Dubliners'  imaginations.  They  saw  that 
England  had  shamefully  evaded  the  home  rule  set- 
tlement. Carson  had  defied  the  Liberals,  Asquith 
and  Loreburn  and  Churchill  had  trimmed.  Then 
the  war  came.     After  all  the  trimming,  Unionist 

[  273  ] 


and  Liberal  both  looked  hungrily  at  Ireland's  man- 
power. How  to  take  it !  The  Volunteers  saw  con- 
scription in  the  eyes  of  the  politicians.  They  dis- 
trusted Redmond.  They  came  near  hating  him, 
better  known  around  Westminster  than  around  the 
South  Circular  Road  or  Rathgar.  Conscription 
more  than  the  war  came  to  decide  the  rebels'  calcu- 
lations. The  formation  of  the  coalition  cabinet  had 
a  definite  effect  on  their  outlook.  It  seemed  to 
them  like  the  death-knell  of  home  rule,  the  tocsin 
of  a  British  unity  against  Ireland.  It  had  much  to 
do  with  their  desperate  resolution  to  act.  The  gov- 
ernment, in  addition,  showed  that  it  suspected  the 
Irish  Volunteers  from  the  beginning.  It  hovered 
over  them,  waiting  to  suppress  them.  What  was 
really  a  traditional  ferment  of  nationalism  until  the 
government  discriminated  against  nationalist  gun- 
running,  became,  under  provocation,  a  logical  ac- 
ceptance of  death. 

When  you  think  of  Pearse  with  his  fine  school,  all 
his  mother's  money  in  it;  MacDonagh,  father  of  two 
young  children  by  whom  he  was  enthralled;  Plunk- 
ett,  with  his  two  young  brothers  and  ambitious  to 
run  the  Irish  Review;  Connolly,  working  at  the  labor 
problem  for  unorganized  Dublin  —  the  personal 
cost  of  insurrection  is  seen  to  have  been  limitless. 
But  they  planned  it  coolly  and  deliberately,  in  every 
infinite  detail.  Spied  on  continually,  under  the  eyes 
of  police  and  mihtary,  they  had  invaluable  aid  from 
girls  and  women  who  did  much  necessary  plotting 
while  they  and  their  followers  went  about  their  work. 
The  experiences  of  Garibaldi  was  one  of  the  models 
they  studied  most  closely,  but  they  dug  out  and 
printed  the  best  of  insurrectionary  lore.     They  in- 

[  274  ] 


tended,  prayed  for,  hoped  for,  a  paralyzing  blow  at 
the  established  government.  They  spared  no  pains 
to  perfect  their  machine. 

EngHsh  government,  put  to  the  test,  no  more 
understood  them  than  a  Cyclopean  giant.  It  beheld 
them  as  utterly  mad,  dangerous,  malignant.  It  could 
not  forgive  them,  especially  in  the  week  of  Kut-el- 
Amara.  It  went  through  all  the  correct  forms  of 
field  general  court-martial,  and  made  haste  to  shed 
their  blood.  One  may  suppose  they  were  dazed 
at  the  despatch  of  it,  the  shocking  assassin-secrecy. 
But,  whatever  their  horror,  they  had  bargained  for 
It  and  they  entered  with  tense  wills  into  a  tradition 
that  was  sacred  in  their  souls.  After  Ulster,  one 
may  scarcely  say  that  they  had  no  right  to  distrust 
English  government,  but  one  may  blame  them  for 
being  desperate.  One  may  think  of  them  as  dream- 
ers and  visionaries.  One  may  wonder  if  they  saw 
both  sides  of  their  alliance  with  black  destruction 
and  death.  They  took  with  them  hundreds  of  trust- 
ing youths.  They  sacrificed  innocent  people.  They 
led  out  Enniscorthy  and  Clonmel  and  Galway  to  a 
hopeless  attempt  to  unite.  But  with  all  there  Is  to 
be  said  against  them,  there  is  this  to  be  said  for 
them:  they  loved  Ireland.  They  knew  she  was  be- 
ing stifled.  They  had  kept  the  spark  in  her  ahve. 
They  were  willing  to  be  human  torches  In  her  night. 


[  275  I 


X 

UNEDUCATED  IRELAND 

THE    POWER    OF    THE    PRIESTS 

The  last  great  fight,"  a  Socialist  leader  once  said 
to  me,  "  will  be  between  the  Blacks  and  the  Reds." 
This  was  Victor  Berger's  way  of  putting  his  belief 
that  social  democracy  and  the  Catholic  religion  are 
in  fundamental  conflict. 

The  rumors  of  this  conflict  are  often  discussed 
among  the  Catholics  themselves.  In  Ireland,  which 
for  the  most  part  knows  about  the  world  at  third 
hand,  one  used  to  hear  the  darkest  accounts  of 
France  and  Italy.  When  I  was  a  boy  the  name  of 
Garibaldi  was  synonymous  with  everything  wicked 
and  disgusting.  I  remember  the  unction  with  which 
we  were  told  how  the  lounging  porters  in  Limerick 
spat  down  on  Italian  sailors  who  sang  of  Garibaldi 
as  they  unloaded  their  freight.  But  it  was  more 
common  to  hear  how  France  had  attacked  Mother 
Church,  and  had  "  fallen  away  from  the  faith." 
Everything  evil  that  befell  France  was  construed  as  a 
visitation  from  Providence,  to  be  parallelled  with  the 
fate  of  that  infamous  Cromwellian  whose  arm  was 
instantly  withered  as  he  raised  it  to  smite  the  Cross 
over  St.  Canice's. 

These  convictions  as  to  the  sacrilegious  character 
of  any  interference  with  the  church  were  carried  into 

[  276  ] 


our  own  native  life.  When  we  bestowed  on  the 
child  of  an  alien  religion  the  pleasant  title  of  Proddy- 
Woddy-Green-Gut,  we  were  only  a  step  from  believ- 
ing that  the  priest  could  turn  a  Parnellite  into  a  goat. 
In  the  secret  lore  which  children  transmit  from  one 
set  to  another,  this  belief  may  still  survive  in  a  differ- 
ent form.  And  I  am  sure  they  are  still  telling  about 
the  French  atheist  who  mutilated  the  sacramental 
wafer,  and  had  to  send  for  a  priest  to  stop  its  bleed- 
ing. 

Among  a  people  whose  partisanship  has  been  sanc- 
tified by  oppression,  it  is  inevitable  that  little  sym- 
pathy should  be  felt  for  the  countries  that  set  them- 
selves against  the  church  in  politics.  In  Ireland  dis- 
loyalty to  the  church  is  regarded  as  a  base  disaffec- 
tion, a  betrayal  of  the  noblest  traditions  of  the  race. 
When  the  people  were  outcast  on  the  hillsides,  the 
priests  were  their  friends.  In  1798,  Father  Murphy 
led  the  boys  of  Wexford  "  to  burst  in  twain  the  gall- 
ing chain,  and  free  our  native  land."  In  the  agra- 
rian war  there  was  always  a  Father  Casey  to  be 
heralded  as  the  savior  "  who  found  us  serfs,  and  left 
us  freemen  and  owners  of  the  soil."  The  tenderness 
which  the  common  Irish  feel  for  the  priests  is  a  deep 
and  heartfelt  tenderness.  It  was  conceived  in  the 
mutual  experience  of  the  Penal  Laws.  It  throbs 
through  the  novels  of  men  like  KIckham  and  Griffin 
who  were  close  to  the  country  people  and  knew  their 
hearts,  and  it  was  riveted  again  through  the  heroism 
and  self-sacrifice  of  the  Famine  years.  All  the  func- 
tions that  a  democratic  government  might  usefully 
assume  —  the  functions,  for  example,  that  give  Tam- 
many Hall  its  opportunity  and  its  power  in  New 
York  city  —  have  fallen  to  the  priesthood  In  Ire- 

[  277  ] 


land.  The  priesthood  volunteered  its  paternal  care 
to  men  who  found  nature  niggardly,  the  landlord 
either  remote  or  arbitrary,  and  the  government 
inimical.  Even  today  it  is  the  priest  who  stands  be- 
tween the  estates  commissioner  and  the  mystified 
tenant.  It  is  the  priest  who  negotiates  the  loan  for 
a  hay-barn.  The  greater  the  dependence  of  the 
country  people,  the  more  enormous  the  obligation  to 
the  one  apparently  disinterested  and  enlightened  man 
in  the  entire  isolated  community. 

A    PEASANT    ARISTOCRACY 

But  even  where  isolation  is  removed,  the  priest  re- 
mains as  a  power  in  the  community.  The  priesthood 
is  the  aristocracy  of  the  Irish  peasant.  Crude  and 
lumpish  as  the  young  curate  may  sometimes  appear 
to  the  outer  world,  there  is  one  woman  to  whom  that 
crude  and  lumpish  man  is  a  veritable  miracle.  The 
romance  of  every  farmer's  wife  in  Catholic  Ireland 
is  realized  in  that  curate.  The  mother  of  a  Prime 
Minister  has  no  more  joy  in  her  son  than  the  mother 
of  an  Irish  priest.  No  one  in  the  world,  not  her 
husband  nor  her  own  mother,  can  dispute  his  place 
in  her  household.  The  trepidation  with  which  the 
priest's  mother  regards  the  fruit  of  her  womb  is 
singular  among  the  emotions  of  maternity.  She  re- 
gards him  as  assured  of  that  salvation  for  which  the 
rest  of  the  world  is  anxiously  striving.  Everyone 
else  is  on  probation,  but  no  matter  how  dull  he  seem 
to  the  mundane  observer,  to  her  he  is  God's 
Anointed,  a  thing  consummated  and  immune.  This 
most  powerful  emotion  may  be  experienced  by  only 
a  few  of  the  half  million  mothers  in  Ireland,  but  it 
is  her  supreme  attainment  and  anything  that  attacks 

[  278  ] 


the  priesthood  touches  this  maternal  instinct  at  its 
core. 

Besides  this  jealous  maternal  phalanx,  the  priest- 
hood is  protected  by  its  own  inherent  power.  Re- 
cruited from  the  farmers  of  Ireland,  the  priests  are 
not  only  the  chosen  of  their  kind,  but  they  constitute 
their  class's  representatives.  In  the  mere  matter  of 
income,  the  average  priest  is  frequently  more  stable 
and  sometimes  more  affluent  than  his  father.  One 
of  his  extra-ecclesiastical  activities  is  to  look  out  for 
his  own  clan.  Sometimes  this  is  done  by  the  eager 
use  of  influence  in  popular  elections.  When  a  man 
is  seeking  office  In  the  country  districts  of  Ireland,  his 
first  move  is  to  invoke  the  aid  of  his  cousin  Father 
Mat  or  his  brother  Father  Toby.  The  county  coun- 
cils and  the  boards  of  guardians  are  decidedly  re- 
sponsive to  priestly  electioneering,  and  that  candi- 
date is  esteemed  lucky  who  wants  the  coronership  in 
a  community  where  he  has  the  backing  of  the  priests. 
Even  in  business  this  support  is  highly  important, 
and  there  are  few  professional  men,  doctors  or  den- 
tists or  solicitors  or  veterinary  surgeons,  whose  fate 
is  not  largely  In  the  hands  of  the  clergy.  In  addi- 
tion to  the  power  they  wield  in  this  direction,  the 
priests  and  bishops  are  zealous  in  forwarding  the  pri- 
vate fortunes  of  their  own  families.  Their  liberal- 
ity is  proverbial.  Many  a  young  lady  in  Ireland  has 
been  educated  at  the  expense  of  her  ecclesiastical 
uncle.  Fathers,  brothers,  sisters,  cousins,  nieces, 
nephews  will  consult  at  the  priest's  house  over  ways 
and  means,  and  the  lame  dog  knows  who  will  help 
him  over  the  stile. 

By  these  subterranean  powers  and  activities,  the 
priesthood    of    Ireland    has    strengthened   its   grip 

[  279  ] 


on  the  country  through  a  process  natural  and  inevi- 
table. As  a  body  of  men,  they  are  by  far  the  most 
formidable  and  dominant  in  social  life.  This  domi- 
nance and  formidability  is  evident  in  their  personal 
appearance.  Where  the  young  lad  on  the  farms  is 
often  anaemic  and  slack-jawed,  there  is  nothing  anae- 
mic about  the  celibate  clergy.  Most  of  them  born  to 
the  plough,  accustomed  to  the  hardships  of  the  farm, 
muscular  and  hearty,  they  emerge  from  the  diocesan 
seminary  without  any  visible  diminution  of  their 
vigor.  In  later  life,  they  are  often  rather  gross.  I 
remember  a  splendid  old  Chicago  Irishman  who  came 
back  from  a  tour  of  his  native  country  and  France 
with  an  exalted  sense  of  the  ascetic  French  abbe  but 
a  disillusioned  conviction  that  "  there  are  too  many 
fat  parish  priests."  One  is  sorry  for  the  parochial 
steed  that  has  to  dray  them  to  and  fro.  But  they  are 
clearly  men  of  authority,  position  and  substance, 
stout  pillars  of  a  stout  institution. 

THE    GOOD   AND   THE    BAD 

From  the  standpoint  of  ecclesiastical  policy,  and 
its  pliancy  in  Ireland,  it  is  unfortunate  that  so  many 
of  the  priests  come  to  the  sacristy  so  straight  from 
the  ploughed  field.  There  Is  no  Celtic  melancholy 
about  the  Irish  farmers  who  have  produced  the  red- 
necked New  York  policeman,  the  lusty  Third  Avenue 
saloon-keeper,  the  Tammany  precinct  captain.  The 
priests  of  Ireland  are  from  the  same  tough  stock. 
Many  of  them  become  wise  and  lovable  pastors, 
strong  of  body,  mind  and  will,  large-hearted  and 
essentially  good.  In  the  reports  of  the  provincial 
newspapers  one  is  constantly  thrilled  by  the  sincerity 
and  magnanimity  of  their  espousal  of  the  "  human 
[280] 


cause."  But  apart  from  these  good  men  there  is  a 
proportion  of  the  clergy  who  retain  the  craft  and 
the  ignorance  of  the  isolated  farm,  and  support  their 
insularity  in  truculence.  These  develop  into  power- 
ful demagogues  of  conservatism  and  reaction. 
Transformed  neither  by  Maynooth  nor  their  Holy 
Office,  they  are  apostles  of  intimidation,  unreason 
and  ill-will.  Their  nationalism  is  a  consecration  of 
low  methods  to  the  attainment  of  specious  and 
bigoted  ends.  It  is  hard  to  blame  them,  because 
they  have  neither  traveled  nor  inquired  nor  read. 
They  are  cocks  on  their  native  dungheaps.  But  the 
practical  disadvantage  is  that  they  provide  a  medium 
for  germinating  those  squalid  policies  that  depend  on 
stubbornness  and  prejudice  for  perpetuation.  They 
push  their  way  to  the  front  in  local  and  national 
issues,  and  are  unfailingly  enlisted  by  the  jobbers 
and  gombeen  men  of  their  parishes. 

The  Irish  hierarchy  contains  its  quota  of  such  men. 
To  balance  them  there  are  several  bishops  who  are 
genuine  statesmen,  anxious  to  forward  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  country  that  they  know  and  love.  The 
Catholic  hierarchy  naturally  devotes  its  power  to 
ecclesiastical  ends.  Its  interest  in  the  Irish  people  is 
the  same  as  an  old-fashioned  mother's  interest  in  her 
obedient  daughter.  So  long  as  the  daughter  is  at 
home  at  sundown,  and  at  hand  to  do  what  she  is 
told,  the  mother  does  not  care  If  the  house  is  stuffy 
and  the  entertainment  rather  scant.  She  conducts 
her  affairs  at  large  without  consulting  her  child,  and 
In  those  affairs  she  Is  principally  concerned  that  her 
menage  will  In  no  way  be  disturbed.  She  is  about  as 
revolutionary  as  a  hen. 

[  281  ] 


CHURCH   AND   STATE 

With  the  Church  so  constituted,  the  question  as  to 
the  relations  between  democracy  and  Papal  religion 
becomes  extremely  significant,  even  though  the  facts 
reveal  a  feral  condition  among  the  country  people. 

Under  Pope  Pius  X  the  church  certainly  did  not 
mince  matters  as  to  the  primacy  of  church  au- 
thority. In  the  decree  of  October  9,  19 11,  the  Vati- 
can issued  its  ordinance  concerning  the  freedom  of 
Catholics  to  exercise  their  legal  rights  as  against 
priests,  and  it  declared  "  that  any  person  who  with- 
out permission  from  an  ecclesiastical  authority  sum- 
mons before  a  lay  court  of  justice  any  ecclesiastical 
person  in  any  case,  civil  or  criminal,  incurs  instant 
excommunication.  The  excommunication  takes 
place  automatically  and  absolution  is  reserved  to  the 
Pope  himself." 

Not  being  a  theologian,  I  cannot  say  whether  this 
decree  has  theological  validity.  It  is  possible,  as 
Cardinal  Newman  showed,  to  combine  obedience  in 
matters  of  faith  and  morals  with  a  strong  independ- 
ence as  to  ecclesiastical  pronouncements.  But,  on 
the  face  of  it,  this  decree  affirms  the  right  of  the 
church  to  order  all  of  its  members  to  forego  certain 
powers  conferred  by  the  modern  state.  It  takes  out 
of  the  layman's  hands  the  instrument  of  justice 
put  there  at  the  instance  of  democracy.  It  de- 
prives a  citizen  of  his  freedom  in  a  matter,  not  of 
faith  or  of  morals,  but  of  civil  and  criminal  admin- 
istration. It  actually  compels  the  Catholic  to  give 
legal  immunity  to  a  criminal  priest,  unless  a  non- 
Catholic  act  in  his  stead,  or  unless  an  ecclesiastical 
authority  allow  him  to  proceed.  If  he  is  forbidden 
[  282  ] 


to  proceed,  he  is  prohibited  by  his  church,  under  the 
severest  penalty  it  can  inflict,  from  bringing  the 
criminal  to  justice. 

If  this  Papal  ordinance  is  valid,  it  proves  beyond 
doubt  that  the  Catholic  church  is  nakedly  opposed  to 
the  free  exercise  of  civic  rights. 

Perhaps  the  church  has  the  right  to  fix  any  eccle- 
siastical punishment  it  likes  for  a  serious  breach  of 
discipline.  But  excommunication  deprives  a  Catholic 
of  the  sacraments.  It  is  a  religious  penalty.  That 
the  church  should  inflict  such  a  penalty  for  an  act 
which  has  nothing  to  do  with  faith,  and  breaks  no 
moral  law,  merely  emphasizes  the  conclusion  that 
the  Catholic  religion,  as  such,  can  oblige  its  adherents 
to  forego  their  civic  r'ghts.  This  conclusion  de- 
stroys full  community'  between  Catholic  and  non- 
Catholic  citizens,  and  so  violates  a  primary  requisite 
of  democracy. 

The  Catholic  priest  comes  to  citizenship  under  a 
special  disadvantage.  Solicitous  before  everything 
about  the  faith  of  his  people,  his  interest  in  the  peo- 
ple is  not  primarily  democratic.  It  is  primarily  theo- 
cratic. He  Is  bound  In  the  nature  of  things  to  look 
upon  the  state  as  an  instrument  for  ecclesiastical 
rather  than  social  ends.  That  this  creates  not  only  a 
formal,  but  a  real  conflict  of  interests  is  written  large 
on  the  history  of  Europe  and  the  United  States.  It 
accounts  for  the  extreme  jealousy  with  which  demo- 
crats ever}^/here  inspect  the  activity  of  the  church  In 
politics.  It  justifies  the  democrats'  belief  that 
churchmen  will  subvert  the  state  to  further  their  re- 
ligion, and  will  forever  strive  to  turn  government 
into  an  ecclesiastical  annex. 

[  283  1 


THE    PROTECTION   IN   A   DEMOCRACY 

What  weapon  has  democracy  against  this  willing- 
ness of  the  churchmen  to  subvert  the  state? 

In  a  country  largely  Catholic,  it  has  no  defence  if 
such  decrees  as  the  one  quoted  are  valid.  Democ- 
racy is  impossible  in  a  country  where  men  give  their 
primary  allegiance  to  a  subversive  religion. 

The  significant  fact  about  the  statesmen  of  the 
Catholic  religion,  however,  is  that  they  have  one 
policy  in  regard  to  one  state,  and  another  policy  in  a 
different  state.  In  those  countries  where  democratic 
principles  are  well  understood,  and  where  public 
opinion  is  mature  and  mobile,  the  leaders  of  the 
Catholic  church  do  not  publicly  try  to  castrate  citi- 
zenship. The  loophole,  therefore,  for  Catholics 
who  believe  in  the  full  exercise  of  civic  rights  is  to 
keep  the  priest  strictly  where  he  belongs,  attending 
to  faith  and  morals. 

It  is  perfectly  true,  of  course,  that  the  priest  has  a 
direct  concern  in  the  faith  and  morality  of  his 
parishioners,  and  is  constrained  to  work  for  faith 
and  morality  by  every  means  in  his  power.  But  in 
the  domain  of  social,  as  distinguished  from  religious, 
fatherhood,  the  one  chance  for  democracy  is  to  have 
the  priest  remain  a  plain  citizen,  no  more  and  no 
less.  No  matter  what  the  history  of  the  country 
where  he  abides,  his  standing  as  a  priest  entitles  him 
to  no  authority  beyond  his  standing  as  a  man.  He 
has  no  more  right  to  impose  his  will  upon  his  fellow- 
citizens  because  he  wears  a  soutane,  than  a  woman 
voter  would  have  a  right  to  impose  her  wishes  be- 
cause she  wears  a  skirt.  Privileged  in  his  character 
as  an  ecclesiastic,  the  priest  becomes  a  layman  the 
[  284  ] 


minute  he  leaves  the  parish  house,  unless  he  Is  on, 
his  way  to  act  as  a  chaplain.  Professionally  con- 
cerned though  he  may  be  In  keeping  his  parishioners 
faithful  and  moral,  he  Is  entitled  to  no  special  con- 
cessions from  the  state  In  this  respect;  and  the  state 
that  gives  him  special  concessions  does  so  at  Its  own 
peril.  The  priest  off  duty  should  stand  on  the  same 
civic  plane  as  the  solicitor  off  duty  or  the  army 
officer  off  duty.  If  his  life  be  consecrated  to  the 
spiritual  welfare  of  the  people,  it  does  not  follow 
that  he  Is  therefore  equipped  to  order  their  social 
welfare.  On  the  contrary,  he  Is,  as  was  said  be- 
fore, under  the  disadvantage  of  not  being  completely 
disinterested. 

Since  social  organization  is  an  ordering  of  con- 
flicting interests  as  well  as  an  attempt  at  Impartiality, 
there  is  no  logical  reason  why  the  clergy  of  any 
church  should  not  be  active  in  politics.  There  are 
but  two  great  dangers.  One  is  that  the  clergy  will 
always  be  powerfully  tempted  to  aggrandize  their 
church,  and  to  do  so  with  that  unscrupulousness 
which  men  seem  to  regard  as  almost  creditable  when 
they  can  absolve  themselves  from  personal,  as  against 
institutional,  hunger.  The  other  is  the  danger  that 
clerical  leaders  will  use  their  immense  power  to  In- 
flict religious  and  social  penalties  on  men  who  act 
contrary  to  their  wishes. 

THE    NEED    FOR    DEMOCRACY 

The  Catholic  church  in  Ireland  resembles  Tam- 
many Hall  very  closely  In  the  manner  in  which  it  tries 
to  penalize  the  Independent  man.  It  is  said  by  Sir 
Horace  Plunkett  and  others  that  the  Catholic  Irish- 
man Is  dreadfully  lacking  in  moral  courage.     But  it 

[  285  ] 


takes  an  extraordinary  brand  of  courage  to  fight  an 
organization  that  has  its  allies,  Its  dependents,  its 
nurslings.  In  every  hole  and  corner,  that  has  its 
fingers  on  the  economic  pipe-line,  and  that  can  punish 
disobedience  by  cutting  off  education  from  your  chil- 
dren, friendship  from  your  household,  religious  exer- 
cise from  your  soul,  and  food  and  drink  and  revenue 
and  oflice  from  our  own  isolated  self.  These  punish- 
ments cannot  be  inflicted  on  the  man  who  has  one 
foot  in  Dublin  and  the  other,  so  to  speak,  in  London. 
They  cannot  be  Inflicted  on  anyone  but  the  man  whose 
prospects  and  goodwill  are  invested  among  the  Irish 
commonalty.  But  there  they  can  be  inflicted,  and 
are  inflicted,  with  a  cruel  will;  and  it  is  only  where 
a  few  independent  men  make  common  cause  against 
such  underhand  and  maleficent  tyranny  that  any  as- 
sertion of  individual  will  is  possible.  The  instances 
of  this  social  t}Tanny,  supplied  by  pure  and  good  men 
as  well  as  by  bigots  and  adulterers  and  cranks  and 
scoundrels,  fill  many  Indisputable  volumes.  The 
countryside  Is  full  of  them.  The  public  sermon,  no 
less  than  the  secret  cabal,  has  served  the  priesthood 
In  Its  brazen  campaign  against  the  men  of  backbone. 
If  It  were  not  for  the  reasons  that  endear  the  church 
to  Ireland,  and  Intertwine  Irish  mothers  and  fathers 
with  the  religion  they  adore,  this  tyranny  could  not 
long  persist. 

Were  the  sins  of  the  priests  physical  rather  than 
sociological,  Ireland  would  long  ago  have  awakened 
to  their  power.  But  the  clergy's  Immaculate  reputa- 
tion for  chastity  has  franked  them  In  their  lust  for 
power. 

Since  it  Is  almost  Impossible  for  Protestants,  not 
to  say  Catholics,  to  carry  out  a  helpful  policy  in  Ire- 

[  286  ] 


land  "  without  permission  from  an  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority," it  is  idle  to  ignore  the  fact  that  the  church 
is  a  highly  organized  political,  and  in  many  ways 
undemocratic,  machine.  The  British  government 
recognizes  it  as  such,  and  uses  it  as  such,  when  pos- 
sible. Meanwhile,  Ireland  is  edified  by  lectures  on 
moral  courage,  and  remains  some  distance  behind 
the  countries  that  are  without  such  extreme  benefit 
of  clergy. 

UNEDUCATED 

One  condition  of  Irish  life  that  has  favored  the 
ultramontane  clergy  to  an  inordinate  degree  has 
been  the  deficiency  of  higher  education  for  Cathohcs. 
Until  quite  recently  the  Catholic  priesthood  itself  has 
had  a  notoriously  narrow  training,  but  the  layman 
has  had  nothing  acceptable  in  the  way  of  a  univer- 
sity at  all.  It  does  not  seem  credible.  It  does  not 
seem  as  if  a  white  community  of  three  million  persons 
within  the  British  empire  could  have  come  down  to 
1908  without  anything  faintly  resembling  a  popular 
university.  Such  has  been  the  plight  of  Ireland. 
The  absence  of  a  popular  university  has  reacted  on 
popular  teaching  in  the  lower  grades  all  through  the 
country.  Religious  orders  trained  on  the  continent 
have  conducted  boarding  schools  for  the  Catholic 
bourgeoisie,  the  boys  faring  much  better  than  the 
girls.  But  the  effect  of  the  policy  of  the  church  at 
large  has  combined  with  the  effect  of  the  policy  of  the 
government  to  keep  the  Irish  Catholic  ignorant.  No 
one  factor  in  Irish  history  is  more  important  or  more 
pitiable  than  this. 

Everyone  grants  what  education  means  in  the  un- 
folding of  human  power.     Everyone  grants  what  it 

[  287  ] 


/ 

means  in  the  experiment  of  personality  and  the  conse- 
cration of  group  achievement  and  the  direction  of 
public  will.  The  aristocratic  tradition  of  English 
education  has  sorely  confined  it,  yet  one  has  only  to 
mention  Oxford  or  Cambridge  to  have  the  sense  of  a 
deep  and  exquisite  process,  a  process  as  friendly  to 
the  human  spirit  as  the  airs  of  Kerry  are  friendly  to 
the  arbutus.  The  tradition  of  the  university  of 
Paris  is  carried  through  the  world  as  the  breath  of  a 
mighty  being,  and  the  name  of  sturdy  Scottish  educa- 
tion is  like  the  name  of  a  strong  buckler  or  a  flashing 
glaive.  It  was  not  for  nothing  that  the  eyes  of  New 
England  narrowed  to  intense  concentration  on  the 
ideal  of  education  or  that  this  ideal  was  borne  all 
over  the  United  States  by  the  descendants  of  New 
England.  Education  is  a  word  that  holds  within 
itself  the  rein  and  the  spur  of  every  human  impulse, 
the  leadership  or  discipleship  of  everything  from  the 
atom  to  the  star.  And  yet  the  Irish  Catholic,  asking 
where  his  Oxford  or  Paris  or  Vienna  or  Bologna  or 
Moscow  was  to  be  found,  had  to  go  back  to  the  days 
of  King  Alfred,  to  the  parched  honeycombs  of  Clon- 
macnoise.  We  know  that  Catholic  boyhood  tried  to 
steal  a  little  wild  honey  in  the  eighteenth  centur^^ 
The  word  "  hedge-school  "  preserves  that  persecuted 
age.  But  the  Latin  of  shepherd-boys  and  the  lore 
of  wandering  scholars  is  a  flitting  wraith  of  educa- 
tional tradition  for  an  eager  and  responsive  people. 
It  is  the  only  one  they  have  had.  Trinity  College, 
Dublin,  is  nominally  the  aristocrat  of  Irish  educa- 
tion. Actually  it  is  a  denationalized  institution 
marked  off  from  the  country  that  has  supported  its 
existence,  a  glum  cousin  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge. 
It  was  chartered  by  Queen  Elizabeth,  "  founded  not 
[  288  ] 


simply  to  spread  learning,"  as  a  frank  United  States 
Bulletin  of  19 17  puts  it,  "  but  to  strengthen  the  Es- 
tablished Irish  (Protestant  Episcopal)  Church  and 
to  Anglicize  the  Irish  nation."  When  it  was  pro- 
posed in  1907  by  Lord  Bryce,  then  Mr.  Bryce,  that 
Trinity  forget  this  task  of  being  Svengali  to  the 
Irish  Trilby  and  come  into  a  new  Irish  university,  to 
include  a  college  for  Catholics,  a  "  defence  com- 
mittee "  of  5000  "  argued  that  the  ideals  of  Trinity 
were  incompatible  with  the  principles  of  authority 
and  of  scientific  theory  as  expressed  in  the  '  Index.  '  " 
Its  own  "  ideals  "  Included  another  Index,  but  this 
Trinity  could  not  see.  It  has  never  quite  emanci- 
pated its  spirit  or  stepped  out  from  the  shadow  of 
ulterior  motive.  About  one-sixth  of  the  students 
since  1871  have  been  Catholics.  Nationalists  like 
John  Redmond  and  Douglas  Hyde  have  graduated 
from  it,  with  a  slow  tendency  on  the  part  of  some  of 
its  fellows  to  see  Ireland  as  something  other  than  a 
fallen  sister.  But  Trinity  could  never  forget  that  it 
was  "  planted  as  a  bulwark  of  English  and  Protestant 
influences,"  and,  despite  such  liberality  as  its  admis- 
sion of  women  in  1904  and  such  glories  as  the  names 
of  Burke  and  Berkeley,  its  teachers  have  remained 
exclusively  Protestant  and  almost  uniformly  anti- 
Nationalist —  with  Sir  Edward  Carson  as  one  of  its 
two  Unionist  M.Ps.  Thus,  in  the  centre  of  Dublin, 
stands  a  lump  of  ascendancy,  lapped  vainly  by  the 
stream  of  national  life. 

THE    FALLEN    SISTER 

I  have  spoken  of  the  fallen-sister  idea  of  Ireland. 
It  has  been  the  fashion  of  English  and  Scotch  educa- 
tionalists to  approach  the  Irish  system  in  this  spirit, 

[  289  ] 


commiseration  linking  with  superiority.  Mr.  Gra- 
ham Balfour  gives  a  perfect  example  of  the  attitude 
in  his  book  on  primary  education  in  1899.  "Last 
comes  Ireland,"  he  murmured,  "  poor  and  in  sub- 
jection, passionately  attached  to  her  faith;  lovable 
and  unreliable  and  helpless,  the  child  among  nations; 
the  Celtic  genius,  mysterious  and  impractical,  '  al- 
ways bound  nowhere  under  full  sail,'  abandoned  to 
obsolete  methods  and  inadequate  in  their  aim,  be- 
cause reform  means  the  calling  up  of  many  quarrels." 
The  quarrels  are  indubitable,  but  there  was  some- 
thing back  of  the  whole  difficulty,  from  kindergarten 
to  college,  besides  this  "  mysterious  and  impractical 
Celtic  genius."  As  Trinity  College  demonstrates, 
the  idea  of  educating  Ireland  was  steadily  subordi- 
nated. The  prime  idea  was  to  Anglicize  Ireland. 
The  obstacle  of  Catholicism  came  in  the  way  of  every 
educational  system,  and  England  never  faced  that 
obstacle  until  the  proportion  of  Englishmen  to  Irish- 
men has  risen  from  two  to  one  to  nine  to  one.  The 
Catholic  church,  incidentally,  sacrificed  Ireland  in  its 
desire  for  dominance.  But  the  only  impracticality 
in  the  situation  was  Ireland's  being  Irish  instead  of 
English,  the  only  mystery  the  eternal  mystery,  that 
round  pegs  will  not  fit  into  square  holes. 

Englishmen  like  Matthew  Arnold  blamed  Liberal- 
ism for  the  conflict.  Just  as  Arnold  had  declared  in 
the  midst  of  Gladstone's  fascinating  legerdemain  that 
"  tenant-right  was  better  than  nothing,  but  ownership 
is  better  still,"  so  he  attacked  the  nonconformist  atti- 
tude on  Ireland's  higher  education.  He  knew  that  a 
vast  number  of  good  Protestants  fanatically  believed 
that  "  the  English  state  did  recognize  as  a  funda- 
mental duty  to  give  an  active  and  exclusive  support 

[  290  ] 


to  a  certain  religion."  So  Gladstone  had  argued  in 
1838,  But  this  did  not  repress  the  persistent  apostle 
of  culture.  "  When  the  Irish  ask  to  have  public 
schools  and  universities  suited  to  Catholics,"  he  said, 
"  as  England  has  public  schools  and  universities 
suited  to  Anglicans,  and  Scotland  such  as  are  suited  ' 
to  Presbyterians,  you  fall  back  in  embarrassment 
upon  your  formula  of  pedants,  '  The  Liberal  party 
has  emphatically  condemned  religious  endowment,' 
then  you  give  to  the  advocates  of  separation  a  new- 
lease  of  power  and  influence.  You  enable  them  still 
to  keep  saying  with  truth,  that  they  have  '  the  forces 
of  nature,  the  forces  of  nationality,  and  the  forces  of 
patriotism,'  on  their  side." 

SEVENTY   YEARS    OF    EVASION 

After  70  years  of  dodging  the  fundamental  fact 
that  Irish  Catholics  must  have  a  university  "  suited 
to  them,"  the  English  government  at  last  braced 
itself  to  the  enormous  effort  of  devising  a  national 
institution  that  was  something  more  than  an  annex 
to  the  royal  Irish  constabulary.  On  the  other  side, 
after  holding  out  against  the  "  godless  colleges  " 
since  1850,  the  Catholic  bishops  braced  themselves  to 
the  equally  enormous  effort  of  accepting  a  non-sec- 
tarian establishment.  Meanwhile  the  Catholic  youth 
of  Ireland,  the  football  of  church  and  state,  had  had 
two  generations  of  intellectual  twilight.  The  great 
nonconformist  English  Liberals  had  never  considered 
the  alternative  to  their  undenominational  precept. 
It  was  denominational  ignorance.  That  ignorance 
was  accepted  by  the  Catholic  bishops  in  preference  to 
"  godless  "  education,  though  the  cost  to  Ireland  of 
ignorance  was  hardly  to  be  calculated  and  never  to  be 

[  291  ] 


corrected.  A  political  student  would  have  to  search 
a  long  time  before  he  could  find  a  better  example  of 
the  selfishness  of  church  and  state.  What  the  unen, 
dowed  bishops  required  was  a  fair  run  for  Irish  uni- 
versity money  —  a  chance  to  make  themselves  felt, 
that  is,  in  a  well-endowed  institution.  What  the 
state  wanted  was  an  ecclesiastical  capitulation  at  the 
price  of  a  university.  Both  results  have  been  fairly 
well  ensured  by  the  government's  ceasing  to  play  the 
bishops'  game  by  gagging  Catholicism  and  by  devis- 
ing a  representative  governing  body  at  the  same  time. 
But  the  Irish  people  had  to  wait  centuries  for  this 
maceration  of  prejudice. 

The  circumstances  of  the  deadlock  are  not  obscure. 
Nothing  was  easier  for  Cobden  or  Bright  than  to  see 
the  evils  of  landlordism.  That  was  a  kind  of  privi- 
lege, a  source  of  authority,  that  they  could  heartily 
declare  war  on.  But  when  it  came  to  helping  the 
Irish  Catholics  qua  Catholics  something  sickened  in- 
side them.  "  With  my  whole  soul  I  am  convinced," 
said  Gladstone  in  1850,  "  that  if  the  Roman  system 
is  Incapable  of  being  powerfully  modified  in  spirit, 
it  never  can  be  the  instrument  of  the  work  of  God 
among  us;  the  faults  and  the  virtues  of  England  are 
alike  against  it."  This  was  said  when  the  Trac- 
tarlan  tide  was  rolling  in,  and  Newman  had  sailed 
out  to  Rome  with  colors  flying  and  many  boats  were 
straining  at  anchor.  The  increase  of  the  grant  to 
Catholic  Maynooth  in  1845  had  put  Gladstone's 
principles  to  the  test.  Bright  wrote  of  it  hotly  and 
contemptuously.  "  The  object  of  this  bill  is  to  tame 
down  those  agitators  —  it  is  a  sop  given  to  the 
priests.  It  Is  hush-money,  given  that  they  may  not 
proclaim  to  the  whole  country,  to  Europe,  and  to 
[  292  ] 


the  world  the  sufferings  of  the  population  to  whom 
they  administer  the  rights  and  the  consolations  of 
religion." 

NOT    UNTIL    1908! 

In  course  of  time  Gladstone  was  to  change,  but 
before  he  did  so  there  were  to  be  several  futile  efforts 
to  solve  higher  education  in  Ireland.  The  first  was 
Peel's  attempt  to  establish  a  "  godless  "  university, 
to  meet  the  needs  of  all  three  denominations.  It  is 
significant  of  the  hard  accent  on  religion  that  all 
three  denominations  —  the  Catholic  bishops  by  a  ma- 
jority of  one  —  pronounced  against  the  Queen's  uni- 
versity. Thereupon,  in  1854,  the  forlorn  Newman 
strove  to  found  a  Catholic  university  in  Dublin,  a 
college  and  a  school  of  medicine,  but  his  failure  to 
get  money,  even  state  money,  left  his  institution  a 
skeleton.  After  nearly  twenty  years  Gladstone  re- 
sponded to  continued  agitation  by  elaborating  a 
scheme  of  his  own.  He  made  up  his  mind  to  feder- 
ate Trinity,  the  Queen's  university,  the  Presbyterian 
Magee  College,  and  this  Catholic  university.  With 
every  resource  of  his  high-minded  craftiness  he  de- 
vised it  so  that,  though  the  scheme  was  to  be  Liberal 
and  non-sectarian,  and  though  "  controversial " 
studies  were  to  be  barred,  the  first  steps  of  the 
Catholics  on  to  this  plank  of  his  platform  would  dis- 
lodge a  small  state  endowment  and  flip  it  into  their 
sectarian  lap.  It  was  an  exceedingly  pretty  device 
for  endowing  the  non-endowable.  Unfortunately, 
the  sum  involved  was  rather  tiny  and  the  ultramon- 
tane Catholic  cardinal  refused  to  spring  the  trap. 
Disraeli  came  along  later  to  make  one  of  his  gestures 
of  statesmanship.     He  established  a  decree-confer- 

[  293  ] 


ring  body  In  1880,  providing  fellowships  for  Catho- 
lics and  Presbyterians,  and  he  called  it  the  Royal 
university.  It  was  not  till  1908  that  this  savage 
aridity  was  remedied. 

In  1908  the  Royal  university  was  dissolved  and  a 
National  university  chartered,  to  include  Queen's 
College,  Cork;  Queen's  College,  Galway;  University 
College,  Dublin;  and  the  Cecilia  Street  Medical 
School.  A  Queen's  university  of  Belfast  was  char- 
tered under  the  same  act.  All  religious  tests  were 
prohibited  and  religious  bias  in  teaching  provided 
against,  in  both  establishments,  but  no  *'  gagging 
clauses  "  even  on  theology.  The  state  endowment 
amounted  to  about  £100,000  a  year.  In  1914-15 
there  were  545  students  at  Belfast,  iio  at  Galway, 
407  at  Cork,  787  at  Dublin.  At  Belfast  95%  of  the 
students  were  non-Catholic,  at  Cork  20%,  at  Dublir> 
and  Galway  2%.  Yet  the  non-sectarian  principle  of 
the  National  university  came  out  in  the  election  of 
senators  in  19 14,  when  a  Jesuit  professor,  two  Prot- 
estant professors  and  five  Catholic  laymen  were 
chosen.  When  one  remembers  that  in  1902  only 
170  Catholics  were  attending  Galway,  Cork  and  Bel- 
fast put  together,  this  new  establishment  is  exhibited 
as  a  national  success.  Its  very  success,  however,  is 
likely  to  make  Irishmen  think  hardly  of  that  ruinous 
educational  vista  behind  it.  Meanwhile  elementary 
and  secondary  education  are  hopelessly  constricted  by 
the  bureaucracy  in  command  of  it. 

THE    ELEMENTARY    SYSTEM 

In  1 9 13  a  viceregal  committee  was  appointed  to 
treat  the  system  for  its  convulsions  without  being 
permitted  to  go  into  all  the  details.     Out  of  a  heart 

[  294  ] 


too  full  of  repression,  however,  the  committee's  final 
report  exceeded  its  instructions  and  exclaimed,  "  The 
system  is  essentially  bureaucratic  and  centralized,  and 
subject  to  no  regular  popular  control,  whether  local 
or  parliamentary."  An  unpaid  board  of  twenty  ap- 
pointed in  the  closets  of  the  government  in  equal  pro- 
portions of  Catholic  and  Protestant,  has  casual  and 
intermittent  contact  with  the  affairs  of  elementary 
education  in  Ireland,  but  the  Tsar  is  the  resident  com- 
missioner. A  deplorable  suggestion  of  the  real  con- 
dition of  affairs  is  to  be  pieced  together  from  the  re- 
marks of  the  resident  commissioner  himself,  W.  J. 
M.  Starkie,  M.A.,  Litt.D.,  LL.D.  Dr.  Starkie 
unconsciously  betrayed  the  system.  "  Between  the 
government,  wKich  appointed  me  for  certain  purposes 
and  then  deserted  me  because  they  turned  out  to  be 
unpopular,  and  the  teachers,  whose  growing  indisci- 
pline and  resistance  to  recognized  authority  have 
been  fostered  by  Ministers  and  other  politicians,  pos- 
sibly innocently,  possibly  for  ulterior  ends,  my  task 
as  an  administrator  has  been  harder  than  most  men 
could  bear.  I  am  aware  that  the  path  I  tread  leads 
neither  to  honor  nor  preferment;  but  I  have  fought 
the  good  fight  and  I  am  not  without  my  consolations." 
It  is  the  very  accent  of  Tsardom.  "  I  am  the  true 
friend  of  merit  wherever  I  find  it.  That  I  am  capa- 
ble of  doing  any  one  a  deliberate  injustice  ...  is  a 
ridiculous  charge,  which  recoils  upon  the  heads  of  the 
wicked  men  that  have  made  it." 

During  several  bad  administrative  storms  that 
raged  before  this  inquiry  of  19 13  practically  all  the 
board  supported  their  commissioner.  "  The  irre- 
sponsible rule  of  English  and  Irish  Treasury  and 
Castle  clerks  "  was  the  common  enemy.  "  We  are  a 
[  295  ] 


very  unpopular  body,"  the  commissioner  wildly  de- 
clared, "  but  we  know  perfectly  well  that  ...  if 
anybody  attempted  to  put  his  hand  on  us  his  fate 
would  be  that  of  the  person  who  put  his  hand  on  the 
ark."  Yet  the  fact  remained  that  warfare  between 
the  teachers  and  their  inspectors  was  passionate. 
"  Every  appeal,  small  or  great,"  the  commissioner 
boasted,  came  to  his  hands.  But  the  multiplication 
of  appeals  demanded  this  special  inquiry. 

The  justification  of  this  particular  commissioner 
may  be  sought  in  the  reforms  between  1900  and 
19 13.  When  Mr.  Balfour  wrote  In  1899  he  painted 
a  black  picture.  "  The  study  of  agriculture,  the  only 
practical  subject  which  has  received  attention,"  Mr. 
Balfour  asserted,  "  has  fluctuated  between  ruinous 
extravagance  and  a  mechanical  study  of  textbooks. 
The  great  Inadequacy  and  insufficiency  of  the  educa- 
tion given  [In  Ireland]  during  nine-tenths  of  the  last 
century  can  hardly  be  exaggerated.  More  teachers, 
all  fully  qualified,  well  paid  and  well  pensioned;  a 
raising  after  school  age;  no  half-time;  better  attend- 
ance; better  buildings;  provision  for  transfer  to 
higher  education."  So  said  Mr.  Balfour  In  1899. 
Dr.  Starkie  ascribed  any  failure  to  carry  out  these 
reforms  to  "  the  apathy  of  the  executive  and  the 
opposition  of  the  treasury."  The  worst  behavior 
of  the  treasury  and  the  Castle,  apparently,  was  to 
hold  up  plans  for  new  schools,  for  six  years.  But 
when  the  government  and  the  teachers  and  the  in- 
spectors had  all  been  blamed,  and  full  credit  allowed 
for  the  introduction  of  kindergarten  and  object-les- 
sons and  elementary  science  and  the  Increase  of  pay 
from  £52  and  £43  In  1877  to  £112  and  £90  in  1910 
(for  men  and  women  teachers  respectively),  the  fact 
[  296  ] 


remained  that  the  local  managers  of  the  schools  — 
almost  always  the  clergymen  —  appoint  and  dismiss 
the  teachers  without  any  local  consultation,  and  that 
the  attendance  only  reached  73%.  The  15,704  em- 
ployees of  the  school  board  could  be  as  great  a  civil- 
izing influence  as  the  Danish  school  teachers  or  the 
American  school  teachers.  As  it  is,  they  are  seething 
with  unhappiness. 

The  problem  of  sectarianism  is  subsiding.  "  The 
first  fifty  years  of  the  national  board,"  said  the  resi- 
dent commissioner,  "  were  spent  in  quarrelling  over 
the  meaning  of  the  word  undenominational.  ...  At 
first  the  Catholics  were  the  only  people  who  approved 
of  the  system.  The  church  of  Ireland  did  not  accept 
It  for  a  very  long  time,  and  some  of  their  schools  are 
coming  In  only  now.  The  Presbyterians  went  so  far 
as  to  found  gun  clubs  to  shoot  the  inspectors.  In  the 
north  of  Ireland.  The  great  question  with  the  Pres- 
byterians in  those  days  (and  there  Is  a  strange  re- 
crudescence of  It  In  the  last  week  or  two)  was 
whether  it  was  right,  as  they  put  It,  '  to  edit  the  Holy 
Ghost.'  "  But  the  ferment  caused  by  an  uncon- 
trolled board,  an  uncontrolled  commissioner,  an  un- 
controlled treasury,  has  retarded  primary  education 
in  every  part  of  the  country,  Belfast  not  less  than 
Clonmel.  This  goes  back  to  the  utter  distrust  of  the 
people,  the  attempt  to  placate  sectarianism  by  giving 
the  schools  to  clerical  management,  under  one  scheme 
or  another.  It  Is  a  striking  and  Indeed  terrible  ex- 
ample of  the  evil  result  of  British  government  in 
Ireland.  Education,  high  and  low,  has  been  cruelly 
sacrificed  to  the  suspicion  and  Intolerance  of  remote 
and  blind  authority.  This  Is  one  great  reason  for 
self-government.  The  nation  Itself  must  force  Its 
[  297  ] 


admission  to  the  government  of  the  national  school 
system  and  the  problems  of  the  teacher.  The  salva- 
tion of  the  country  depends  almost  entirely  on  educa- 
tion. It  cannot  continue  to  be  a  mere  bone  of  con- 
tention between  church  and  state. 


[298] 


XI 
THE  IRISH  IDYL 

SORDID  ! 

CiALL  the  Irish  imaginative  !  "  Lady  Waterford 
exclaimed  to  Lord  Morley.  "  So  they  are  on  one 
side,  or  on  the  surface;  in  substance  they  are  not  Im- 
aginative at  all;  they  are  sordid  and  prosaic.  Look 
at  marriage  —  love  no  part  In  It,  'tis  an  affair  of  so 
many  cows;  sentiment,  not  a  spark  of  It!  The 
woods  In  the  park  open  for  the  public  on  summer 
evenings  —  do  you  ever  see  lads  and  lasses  In  lovers' 
pairs?  Never,  never.  They  are  actors,  and  they 
all  know  they  are  actors;  and  each  man  knows  that 
the  man  to  whom  he  Is  talking  Is  not  only  playing 
a  part,  but  knows  that  he  knows  that  he  Is  playing 
a  part.  They  cannot  help  lying,  and  they  have  no 
shame,  not  merely  In  being  found  out,  but  In  being 
known  to  be  lying  as  the  words  come  fresh  from  their 
lips.  Man,  woman,  and  child,  they  are  soaked  and 
saturated  in  insincerity." 

Lord  Morley's  comment  was  silence.  He  saw 
that  the  lady  was  without  heat  or  anger  or  contempt. 
The  terrible  picture  was  to  her  a  complete  picture. 
"  I  listened,"  writes  Lord  Morley,  "  with  the  pa- 
tience required  by  manners." 

Nothing  is  more  gratifying,  I  think,  than  to  sum 
up    racial    character    In    the    manner    of    the    old 

[  299  ] 


geographies.  But  it  is  difficult,  even  with  plain  facts 
in  front  of  you,  to  make  a  sound  inference  unless, 
of  course,  you  are  infallible.  What  would  Lady 
Waterford  have  thought  of  the  cabman  who  tied  a 
shoe  lace  for  Mrs.  Martin,  reported  in  Somerville 
and  Ross's  Irish  Memories.  "  She  thanked  him 
with  her  usual  and  special  skill  in  such  matters,  and, 
as  she  slowly  moved  away,  she  was  pleased  to  hear 
her  cabman  remark  to  a  fellow : 

"  '  That's  a  dam  pleshant  owld  heifer !  '  " 

If  you  were  sufficiently  literal,  any  such  remark 
would  be  grossly  "  sordid  and  prosaic."  It  de- 
lighted Mrs.  Martin.  The  difficulty  is  that  patriot- 
ism compels  a  great  many  Irishmen  to  deny  the  half- 
truth  that  is  back  of  Lady  Waterford's  harsh  ob- 
servation, and  to  insist  that  the  genuine  Ireland  Is 
Idyllic. 

This  idyl  is  largely  false. 

There  Is  nothing  Idyllic,  In  honest  fact,  about  the 
loveless  marriages  that  are  so  often  arranged  over 
two  pints  of  stout  In  the  smelly  parlor  of  a  public- 
house,  a  counterpart  of  the  property-marriages  of 
royal  families.  Neither  Is  there  anything  elegiac 
about  the  funerals  that  are  one  of  the  few  occasions 
for  conviviality  In  the  remoter  districts  In  Ireland. 
A  few  years  ago  a  friend  took  me  to  the  funeral 
of  one  of  his  customers  —  a  woman  publican  — 
In  a  village  In  the  hills  on  the  borders  of  Kil- 
kenny, Waterford  and  Tipperary.  I  shall  never 
forget  the  "  mourners "  who  came  in  a  steady 
procession  Into  the  back-parlor  of  the  public  house, 
to  receive,  with  a  minimum  of  conversation,  what 
was  evidently  welcomed  as  a  drink  free  of  charge. 
The   host,   collarless   and   coatless,   but  wearing   a 

[  300  ] 


hat,  served  these  drinks  without  more  than  a 
perfunctory  greeting.  The  drinks  were  swallowed 
with  business-like  despatch,  and  the  satisfied 
"  mourner "  gave  place  to  the  next  thirsty  soul, 
usually  without  a  thank  you.  If  he  left  any  of  his 
port  in  the  tumbler,  back  it  was  slipped  into  the  bot- 
tle, to  be  poured  out  for  the  next  guest.  I  never  saw 
anything  more  squalid  in  darkest  Chicago.  The 
publican  was,  in  this  case,  a  nephew  of  the  woman 
who  had  died.  He  was  a  crafty,  sibillant,  under- 
handed hound,  who  whispered  assets  and  liabilities 
with  the  brewer,  with  a  callousness  worthy  of  lower 
Broadway.  Here  was  no  idyl  of  an  innocent  coun- 
tryside, but  a  cesspool  for  which  the  only  cure  would 
be  a  whole  system  of  drainage. 

UNCONTAMINATED ! 

But  it  is  a  mistake,  it  seems  to  me,  to  let  one's 
"  exasperation  with  human  life  "  concentrate  on  na- 
tive incidents  like  this.  Hundreds  of  these  incidents, 
each  at  variance  with  the  Irish  idyl,  might  be  col- 
lected in  a  week,  but  "  all  these  problems,"  as  George 
Russell  recently  said  to  a  grumbler,  "  piled  one  on 
the  top  of  another  lay  too  heavy  a  burden  upon  our 
mortality.  One  at  a  time  we  might  possibly  deal 
with.  But  what  is  really  the  matter  is  that  the 
whole  social  structure  has  grown  up  haphazard,  that 
no  brains  have  been  put  into  Irish  education,  that  as 
a  consequence  our  popular  instructors  write  down  to 
a  low  level  and  we  have  everywhere  a  low  level  of 
knowledge." 

In  London,  I  understand,  there  is  a  distinguished 
clique  which  still  points  with  admiration  to  Ire- 
land's medisevahsm.     They  think  of  England  as  a 

[  301  ] 


blind  materialistic  giant  floundering  his  way  through 
the  slough  while  pure  and  simple  Ireland  has  moved 
forward  toward  the  goal  with  poetic  clairvoyance. 
They  contrast  the  fair  hills  of  Ireland  with  the 
squalid  Cockney  mews.  They  talk  raptly  of  a  peas- 
ant proprietary.  Dreamy  and  unpractical  Ireland 
has  worked  out  its  salvation  without  socialism 
or  syndicalism,  eugenics,  biometrics,  economics. 
Science,  the  godless  illusion,  has  passed  Ireland  by. 
Saved  from  class  war,  serene  in  her  possession  of  the 
eternal  verities,  Ireland  has  never  lost  herself  in  the 
mazes  of  intellectualism.  She  has  preserved  that 
simplicity  of  soul  which  the  Reformation  and  capi- 
talism combined  to  destroy.  A  lily  on  the  modern 
ash-heap,  she  perfumes  the  world  of  sweatshops  and 
slums  with  the  ineffable  aroma  of  another  world. 
The  Cinderella  among  sordid  capitalistic  jades,  she 
looks  with  starry  eyes  at  their  Lesbian  lusts,  and 
turns  away  from  them  to  tell  her  rosary. 

With  all  this  admiration  for  inviolate  mediae- 
valism,  very  few  of  these  gentlemen  have  left  the 
worldliness  which  they  deplore  to  perch  on  a  fair  hill 
in  Ireland.  One  of  them  did  leave,  only  to  report 
priggishness,  dullness  and  bad  cooking.  (Cinderella 
thought  him  horrid.)  And  the  only  soul  he  discov- 
ered that  outshone  the  ecclesiastical  candles  was  that 
of  the  humorous  poet,  George  Russell,  who  took  so 
fierce  an  interest  in  education  and  abattoirs,  catch- 
crops  and  winter  dairying.  As  for  the  other  intel- 
lectuals, they  use  Ireland  as  a  stick  with  which  to 
beat  the  Behemoth  that  they  really  love,  the  Cockney 
Behemoth  that  dominates  them. 

With  the  intellectual  fad  of  mediaevalism  it  is  not 
important  to  deal,  nor  do  I  think  that  a  slanderous 

[  302  ] 


version  of  Ireland's  mediaeval  slums  and  sewers, 
prejudices  and  dullnesses,  is  a  retort  worth  elaborat- 
ing. I  am  content  to  suggest  the  sheer  vanity  of  pre- 
tending that  Ireland  is  immunely  naif,  secure  from 
the  complexities  of  the  modern  capitalistic  state. 

In  one  respect  Ireland  is  indeed  inviolate.  Where 
modern  industrialism  has  left  visible  nature  in  other 
countries  mutilated  and  reproachful,  Ireland  is  still 
unspoiled  and  proud.  Industry  has  not  gashed  the 
countryside.  Nor  has  the  vulgarity  of  Tono-Bun- 
gay  billboards  invaded  her.  The  perverts  who  sell 
the  beauty  of  their  own  landscape  in  order  to  make 
money  enough  to  buy  a  ticket  from  Cook  to  see 
somebody  else's  landscape  —  these  perverts  have  not 
yet  discovered  that  the  virtue  of  Irish  nature  is 
saleable.  When  they  do,  we  may  expect  the  worst. 
In  recent  years  one  sad  step  in  that  direction  has 
been  taken  by  the  unenlightened,  hard-pressed  peas- 
ant proprietary.  Along  the  country  roads,  one 
meets  great  wagons  loaded  with  dismembered  sec- 
tions of  giant  oak  and  elm.  This  clearance  means 
ready  cash,  and  ready  cash  Is  more  eloquent  than  af- 
forestation or  scenery.  It  is  a  choice,  perhaps,  be- 
tween thinning  the  family  or  thinning  the  woods. 
But  a  country  further  denuded  of  trees  will  be  a  poor 
legacy  from  the  present  proprietors.  And  an  ugly 
Ireland  would  be  a  dead  Ireland.  The  beauty  of 
Ireland  has  done  a  great  deal  to  keep  nationalism 
alive.  One  of  the  rewards  for  an  Irish  democracy 
will  be  a  beautiful  country  where  a  man  can  actually 
keep  body  and  soul  together,  and  not  have  to  save 
his  body  by  starving  his  soul. 

But  it  is  exactly  because  Irishmen  want  to  live 
out  their  lives  in  their  own  "  four  beautiful  green 

[  303  ] 


fields  "  that  they  must  face  the  realities  of  modern- 
ism. It  is  impossible  for  Ireland  to  avoid  these 
realities.  We  are  of  Adam;  and  we  shall  eat  the 
apple.  We  may  say  "  socialism  "  with  a  Maynooth 
sneer,  but  we  might  as  well  sneer  at  streptococci.  It 
is  the  virgin  race  that  succumbs  to  a  new  germ. 
The  race  that  has  suffered  diseases  survives  diseases. 
Ireland  may  be  mediaeval,  but  it  is  the  very  mediae- 
vallsm  of  her  children  that  makes  them  easy  victims 
when  they  enter  the  competitive  life  outside.  And 
this  competitive  life  is  growing  up  in  Ireland.  If 
you  were  to  guard  the  country  tomorrow  with  walls 
of  impregnable  brass,  the  ideas  of  modernity  would 
creep  through  the  rivets. 

This,  however,  is  the  abstract  case  of  positive  as 
against  negative  virtue.  More  actual  is  Ireland's 
definite  concern  with  the  complex  modern  capitalistic 
state.  If  you  wish  to  discover  how  this  complexity 
is  inwoven  with  politics  all  you  need  to  do  is  to  study 
the  financial  clauses  of  the  home  rule  act.  There 
you  will  find  the  tentacles  of  capitalism  clasping  the 
future  of  Ireland  with  all  the  tenderness  of  a  hungry 
octopus.  Ireland  is  not  succulent.  She  is  worn  with 
years  and  misadventure.  But  there  is  a  little  meat 
on  her  bones,  and  capitalism  does  not  despise  her. 

THE    PHILISTINE    LET    LOOSE 

It  would  be  pitiful  if  the  accent  of  Ireland  were 
wholly  changed  by  its  economic  adjustment.  There 
are  other  accents  that  do  not  sound  so  well  in  her 
midst.  It  was  my  fortune  some  years  ago  to  be 
taken  by  an  American  through  part  of  the  south  of 
Ireland.  We  reached  Cappoquin,  In  Waterford,  on 
an  evening  in  September.     We  knew  there  was  a 

[  304  ] 


monastery  at  the  top  of  a  mountain,  where  visitors 
could  spend  the  night,  "  regardless  of  class,  creed  or 
color."  My  American  friend  wanted  to  see  every- 
thing, so  we  decided  to  take  a  side-car  at  Cappoquin, 
and  drive  up  the  mountain  road  to  the  monastery. 

The  young  driver  whom  we  had  hired  at  the 
grocer's  shop  was  silent  without  being  taciturn. 
Finding  him  politely  uncommunicative  about  the 
monks  of  Mount  Melleray,  I  turned  away  from  him 
to  look  at  the  country  through  which  we  were  climb- 
ing. It  was  a  soft,  grey  evening,  an  evening  of 
empty  peacefulness.  For  myself,  I  had  had  too 
much  of  empty  peacefulness  in  Ireland.  After  ten 
years  in  American  cities  I  had  learned  to  desire  a 
palpable  response  from  the  life  about  me,  and  in  the 
placidity  of  the  Irish  midlands  I  had  too  often  felt 
myself  like  a  vegetable,  a  turnip  planted  in  a  row  of 
turnips,  expected  to  stay  still  forever.  But  after 
several  days  with  my  American  friend,  thirstily 
drinking  up  the  Americanism  which  I  had  come  to 
love,  I  now  found  myself  able  to  turn  back  happily 
to  Ireland.  There  she  was,  my  enigmatic  native 
land,  spreading  out  her  gifts  for  us  under  the  silent 
sky,  quite  open  and  yet  quite  hidden.  From  my  side 
the  fields  fell  down  into  a  ravine  parallel  with  the 
road  —  a  long,  long  ravine  at  the  base  of  the  op- 
posite hills.  From  our  high  vantage  point,  it 
seemed  like  a  bed  of  trees  in  the  grey  evening.  In 
the  groove  of  the  valley  the  trees  were  so  thickly 
green  that  there  was  no  hint  of  the  earth  beneath; 
and  the  same  thick  greenness  covered  the  shoulders 
of  the  hills  beyond.  You  could  imagine  a  goblin  life 
under  this  sea  of  trees,  in  the  sweet-smelling  spaces 
beneath.     Or  you  could  imagine  the  crash  with  which 

[  305  ] 


a  giant  of  ages  beyond  might  lie  into  a  bed  that 
seemed  so  beautifully  plumed  as  this  bed  of  a  thou- 
sand tree-tops.  There  was  nothing  empty  about  this 
vision  of  myriad  trees,  and  it  was  a  wealth  far  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  an  Adirondack  valley.  In  some 
way  deeply  personal  and  primitive  I  felt  intimate 
with  this  scene  as  I  had  never  felt  intimate  with  the 
Adirondacks.  The  strong  horse  trotted  powerfully 
up  the  long  slope.  Each  perch  gave  me  a  wider 
view  around,  and  as  the  silent  dignity  of  the  valley 
possessed  me  —  natural  without  savagery  —  I  re- 
joiced in  admitting  to  myself  that  here,  without  any 
effort,  I  felt  the  subtle  enchantment  of  my  own 
country. 

Even  as  I  write  now,  I  recall  with  happiness  that 
sea  of  trees,  pouring  down  both  sides,  and  flowing 
down  the  curving  valley  for  miles.  I  recall  the  rich 
green  of  the  leaves,  and  the  damp  of  the  evening 
softly  penetrating  everything.  The  night  descends 
like  the  soft  fall  of  snow.  Ireland  rests,  if  she  who 
has  urged  so  many  errant  souls  on  the  eternal  pil- 
grimage can  ever  be  said  to  rest.  Rather,  she  folds 
her  arms,  and  is  silent.  And  we  turn  to  each  other 
in  the  loneliness  that  this  austere  land  creates  in  the 
child  of  Zion. 

I  wanted  the  New  Yorker  to  love  Ireland.  When 
I  turned  to  him  I  found  him  busy  with  his  time- 
table. 

"  Isn't  it  wonderful?  "  I  asked. 

"  Yes,  it  certainly  is  wonderful,  wonderful !  Now, 
I  guess  I  can  make  that  connection,  after  all.  Look 
here,  it  says  I  can  reach  Athlone  tomorrow  night.  I 
want  to  see  the  Deserted  Village,  Goldsmith's  De- 
serted  Village.     Seems    an    awful   waste   of   time, 

[  306  ] 


though,  doesn't  it!  Do  you  think  there'll  be  any 
ruins  there?  I  guess  not.  The  railway  superin- 
tendent didn't  seem  to  think  so.  Damn,  why  did  we 
miss  that  train  yesterday,  anyway.  We  had  lots  of 
time,  too.  I  hate  to  miss  a  train,  it  seems  so 
stoopid.  Doesn't  it  make  you  mad  to  miss  a  train, 
though!  Gee!  Wish  I  could  read  what  the  guide 
book  says  about  Athlone,  it's  getting  darned  dark. 
I  ought  to  see  the  Deserted  Village.  I  want  to  put 
it  in  my  book.  It  has  circulation  value,  everybody's 
heard  about  it.  Of  course  I  needn't  really  go  there. 
It  isn't  the  sort  of  thing  you  have  to  see  to  write 
about.  But  I  do  like  to  go  over  the  ground,  pre- 
vents your  making  a  bad  break.  Say,  wasn't  that  a 
Splendid  Old  Keep  we  saw  today.  Nine  hundred 
years  old!  Think  of  it!  It  was  fine,  fine.  Gee, 
I  wish  I'd  brought  another  film.  Do  you  suppose  I 
can  get  a  picture  of  one  of  the  old  monks  digging 
his  own  grave?  Wouldn't  that  be  great?  Don't 
suppose  they'd  let  me,  though,  do  you?  Is  it  much 
farther?  Will  they  give  us  tea  when  we  get  there? 
They  do,  eh?  That'll  be  fine,  fine.  .  .  .  I'm  begin- 
ing  to  get  sort  of  scared  already,  aren't  you?  " 

This  was  the  way  the  man  was  writing  his  "  in- 
spirational book  "  about  Ireland.  It  reminded  me 
of  New  York  restaurants,  publishers'  lunches,  per- 
spiring waiters,  call  boys  shouting,  "  Mister  Am- 
brose, Mister  Guggenheim,  Mister  Porter,  Mister 
Amb  — "  It  reminded  me  of  the  queer  human  breed 
that  thinks  you  can  go  out  and  have  valuable  emo- 
tions to  order.  Is  it  the  way  to  do  it?  Yes,  if  they 
only  would  report  a  single  one  of  the  real  emotions 
they  do  have.  But  not  if  they  pretend  to  be  "  in- 
spirational." 

[  307  ] 


"  Look  here,"  said  I,  across  the  well  of  the  car, 
"  I  am  going  to  write  about  you,  '  Get-Ireland- 
Quick.'  "  He  was  delighted,  and  laughed  uproar- 
iously at  my  compliment  to  his  "  efficiency  " — "  Go 
ahead.     It'll  be  fine.     I'll  print  it  in  my  book." 

THE    HOME    VARIETY 

He  was  in  the  country  about  a  week,  and  to  my 
great  regret  I  had  only  three  days  with  him.  Dur- 
ing that  time,  however,  we  zigzagged  far  and  wide. 
It  was  a  flying  trip,  a  triumph  of  transportation. 
We  made  a  number  of  close  connections  in  a  most 
brilliant  manner.  And  after  I'd  shouted  goodbye 
to  my  brisk  and  cheerful  companion  as  he  waved  to 
me  from  the  Cork  express,  I  felt  as  If  the  vital  spark 
had  died  in  my  clay  —  I  came  back  to  my  accus- 
tomed Ireland  with  a  thud.  When  I  returned  to  my 
native  town  everyone  wanted  to  know  about  the 
handsome  American.  As  I  told  them  In  the  club  of 
our  dashing  through  three  counties  and  of  my  com- 
panion's mental  cinema,  I  could  see  they  were 
amused.  I  pictured  to  them  his  alertness  and  "  effi- 
ciency " —  I  told  them  how  we'd  done  Lismore  Castle 
in  ten  minutes,  and  driven  twenty  miles  on  a  side-car 
to  make  up  for  a  train  we'd  missed.  And  they 
laughed.  They  enjoyed  the  fantastic,  brisk  Amer- 
ican. Then  the  subject  was  dropped,  and  the  duties 
of  the  evening  performed.  These  consisted  of  scru- 
tinizing the  winners  in  the  paper  that  comes  In  on 
the  9:10  train;  of  drinking  either  a  bottle  of  porter 
or  a  Power  and  soda;  and  of  being  a  little  bored  by 
the  oft-told  tale  of  "  goff."  Clubs  are  the  same 
everywhere.  But  In  Ireland  they  are  imprisonment. 
Miasmatic  and  dull,  they  make  one  homesick  for 

[  308  ] 


even  the  publisher's  New  York,  the  clear  sun  of 
New  York  that  aerates  the  world  and  draws  every- 
one and  everything  to  the  sky. 

It  is  this  Philistinism  within,  a  caricature  of  every 
idyl,  which  gives  the  outside  philistinism  so  much 
sanction.  The  patriot  does  not  admit  the  home 
variety.  He  compares  the  best  at  home  to  the  worst 
abroad.  The  result  is  distortion,  and  for  Ireland  a 
serious  distortion  because  It  rejects  healthy  criticism, 
it  confirms  Insularity  and  provincialism. 

THE    RETURNED    "  AMERICAN  " 

One  of  the  regular  tragi-comedles  of  Irish  life,  on 
this  account,  is  the  Returned  "  American."  Fresh 
from  Chicago  or  Boston,  the  prosperous  visiting 
emigrant  finds  himself  In  a  strange  relation  to  the 
old  familiar  life.  Still  a  child  when  he  left  home, 
humble,  timid  and  Inexperienced,  he  knew  nothing 
beyond  his  native  parish,  and  his  life  was  hemmed 
and  subdued.  Without  a  penny  of  his  own,  he  lived 
in  obedience  to  his  father,  his  schoolmaster  and  his 
priest;  and  his  radius  was  the  radius  of  the  ass's 
cart.  Flung  into  the  medley  of  American  life  he 
was  compelled  to  struggle  with  giants  he  had  never 
even  conceived,  to  fit  his  senses  to  the  mad  traffic 
of  a  metropolis,  to  become  way-wise  in  the  factory, 
to  learn  the  methods  of  a  harsh,  crass,  bristling  civil- 
ization. He  who  had  thought  Leitrim  or  Limerick 
Illimitable  found  himself  engulfed  In  a  whirlpool  of 
sensations  which  no  one  could  sort  or  describe.  His 
own  people  laughed  at  him  as  a  "  greenhorn,"  and 
pushed  him  out  for  himself  to  sink  or  swim.  For 
the  first  time  he  earned  and  spent  real  money.  He 
ate  and  drank  what  he  liked.     He  tasted  a  novel  in- 

[  309  ] 


dependence.  If  he  had  an  aptitude  for  the  nevv'  life, 
he  lost  some  of  his  fears,  took  courage  in  his  search 
for  work,  found  his  value  in  the  market,  earned 
higher  wages,  broadened  out.  A  little  swaggering 
before  any  new  "greenhorn"  was  inevitable;  and 
when  his  chance  to  visit  the  "  old  country  "  arrived, 
he  resolved  to  show  the  heights  he  had  attained,  the 
vast  distance  he  had  travelled,  the  colossal  difference 
between  the  "  greenhorn  "  and  the  Yank. 

The  greatest  surprise  for  the  Returned  American 
is  the  stationary  life  to  which  he  comes  home.  He 
does  not  understand  that  he  has  himself  been  merely 
sucked  into  a  whirlpool.  He  feels  that  it  is  he,  not 
America,  that  has  accomplished  his  experience;  and 
he  wonders  that  while  he  was  so  active,  the  people 
at  home  could  stand  still.  The  contrast  between 
his  own  brilliant  achievements  and  the  unvarying  rou- 
tine he  had  forgotten  fills  him  with  an  unbidden  su- 
periority. He  sees  in  a  new  perspective  the  gods  to 
whom  he  formerly  bowed.  The  terrifying  school- 
master is  a  meek,  slipshod,  shabby  old  man.  The 
priest  is  slow-moving,  amiable,  asthmatic,  fat,  and 
obviously  inexperienced.  And  his  mother  Is  a  re- 
spectful, blushing  woman,  who  cannot  help  fingering 
his  clothes.  The  subservience  of  his  father  to  the 
tradespeople  and  the  land  agent  strike  a  nerve  that 
competition  has  made  keen.  He  sees  no  reason  for 
all  this  self-effacement.  He  longs  to  assert  himself 
against  all  the  powers  to  which  his  childhood  had 
been  enslaved.  He  grows  loud,  aggressive,  crude. 
He  jingles  his  sovereigns  and  cocks  a  belligerent  hat. 
He  swears  more  than  is  good  for  him,  and  doesn't 
give  a  damn  who  knows  it.  Something  tells  him  he 
is  out  of  joint  with  the  world  he  knew.     He  criti- 

[  310  ] 


clzes,  to  set  himself  right.  People  sneeringly  whis- 
per he  thinks  he's  a  great  fellow.  All  he  has  seen, 
and  been,  and  suffered,  is  locked  from  their  eyes. 
The  story  of  his  life  beyond  is  ignored,  while  yes- 
terday's weather  is  discussed,  and  the  bad  year  for 
hay.  Three  thousand  miles  of  sea  lie  between  him- 
self and  the  men  who  say  *'  hello."  They  feel  he 
is  proud  of  the  contrast  that  his  thick  gold  chain  an- 
nounces. He's  "  too  good  for  them."  The  words 
that  should  be  spoken  are  left  unspoken,  and  both 
take  refuge  in  idle,  rasping  talk.  When  he  goes 
back  to  the  Chicago  car-barns,  he  feels  a  strange  re- 
lief.    He  is,  in  a  sad  sense,  going  home. 

But  if  the  people  in  Ireland  have  utterly  failed  to 
appreciate  the  romance  of  the  Returned  American, 
the  romance  of  his  lonely  and  heroic  struggle  in  a 
hard  and  unfriendly  life,  they,  in  turn,  are  acutely 
sensitive  to  the  contrast  he  has  taken  pains  to  draw. 
He  is  no  longer  the  modest,  submissive  boy  they 
knew.  He  is  purse-proud  and  vulgar.  He  has 
overlooked  the  improvements  that  meant  labor  and 
invention  and  pride.  He  has  conveyed  all  too 
scornfully  his  desire  to  introduce  changes,  renovate, 
reform.  They  shudder  at  his  impious  hands. 
Things  reverent  from  age  and  association  have  lost 
their  value  in  his  sharpened  eyes.  His  religion  is  no 
longer  the  Influence  it  was  at  home.  New  values, 
values  in  money  and  worldliness  and  will,  have  sup- 
planted the  previous  truths  of  old.  He  has  looked 
down  on  them  as  old-fashioned  and  behind  the  times. 
He  has  tried  to  force  on  them  crazy  ideas  of  class 
and  power.  The  clash  between  generations  has  been 
accentuated  by  the  clash  between  the  New  World 
and  the  Old.     In  the  parish  he  is  remembered  as  a 

[3U  J 


Yank;  and  conservatism  Is  Ironic  about  this  latest 
disciple  of  Mammon,  who  has  splashed  his  money 
about  with  such  immoral  recklessness,  and  so  boldly 
invited  the  anger  of  the  gods. 

For  my  own  part,  I  feel  sympathy  with  the  Old 
World  in  Ireland.  I  dread  nothing  for  Ireland  so 
much  as  machine-slavery,  the  homogeneity  of  vulgar 
living  that  is  now  the  rule  in  the  world  and  the 
economic  rule  In  small  Irish  towns.  But  bitter  as  it 
is  to  risk  Ireland's  accent,  I  do  not  think  that  pas- 
sionate provincialism  either  in  regard  to  England  or 
America,  can  save  her  without  confirming  a  worse 
decay.  Ireland  must  season  Its  character  in  the 
world  as  It  Is,  not  shrink  away  from  foreignness,  or 
It  is  destined  to  succumb  to  the  world. 


I  312  J 


PART  ly 
REMEDIES 

"  We  are  less  children  of  this  clime 
Than  of  some  nation  yet  unborn 
Or  empire  in  the  womb  of  time. 
We  hold  the  Ireland  in  the  heart 
More  than  the  land  our  eyes  have  seen, 
And  love  the  goal  for  which  we  start 
More  than  the  tale  of  what  has  been." 

A.  E. 


XII 
HOLY  POVERTY 

ECONOMIC    FITNESS 

1  HE  problem  before  Ireland  today  is,  in  short,  the 
problem  of  survival;  and  the  terms  of  survival  are, 
first  of  all,  economic  fitness.  Are  the  Irish  econom- 
ically fit  to  survive?  Without  economic  fitness,  the 
Irish  will  just  as  certainly  perish  off  the  face  of  Ire- 
land as  the  Red  Indian  has  perished  off  the  face  of 
Manhattan.  Morally,  this  may  seem  unspeakable 
and  indefensible.  But  many  morally  indefensible 
results  have  occurred  upon  this  planet,  the  first  law 
of  which,  neither  moral  nor  immoral,  is  survival. 
He  who  neglects  to  survive  may  have  a  sound  case 
against  the  planet;  but  the  planet  is  deaf  and  dumb. 
"  To  perish  may  also  be  a  solution."  But  if  the 
Irish  prefer  survival  to  victimization,  they  must 
strive  for  economic  fitness.  In  that  strife  they  must 
search  out  those  "  institutional  elements  "  of  which 
Thorstein  Veblen  has  spoken  that  are  "  at  variance 
with  the  continued  life-interests  of  the  community." 
By  the  "  force  of  their  instinctive  insight  "  they  must 
prevent  "  the  triumph  of  imbecile  institutions  over 
life  and  culture,"  whether  those  institutions  are  self- 
made,  or  church-made,  or  government-made.  They 
m,ust  decline  to  work  under  institutions  that  are 
at  variance  with  their  proper  interests.  They  must 
[  315  ] 


break  the  "  bonds  of  custom,  prescription,  principles, 
precedent,"  and  achieve  the  means  of  fitness  and  sur- 
vival. 

Modern  economic  civilization  is  only  beginning  to 
learn  that  it  must  not  kill  its  wounded.  Until  mod- 
ern Germany  applied  itself  to  causes  and  effects  and 
attacked  the  causes  of  poverty  it  was  usually  held  that 
poverty  was  little  better  than  crime.  It  was  pun- 
ished by  ignorance,  disease,  contumely,  slavery,  ex- 
termination. For  Ireland  it  was  doubly  serious,  be- 
cause the  Irishman  is  unwillingly  forced  to  compete 
with  the  Englishman,  the  worst  equipped  with  the 
best  equipped;  and  a  vicious  circle  was  established,  in 
which  the  loss  of  an  invalid  sister  or  a  dull  brother 
was  a  relief  as  well  as  a  tragedy  in  a  warfare  so 
deadly  as  the  modern  economic  war.  Hence,  the 
modern  critic  bases  his  charges  against  the  Irish  on 
economic  grounds.  To  drink  whisky,  it  is  pointed 
out,  Is  an  economic  sin.  So  far  as  capacity  is  con- 
cerned, an  Irishman  Is,  so  to  speak,  entitled  to  as 
much  whisky  as  an  Englishman.  But  for  Irishmen 
to  spend  £15,000,000  a  year  on  alcohol  is  a  sin,  not 
against  Heaven,  but  against  economic  fitness.  He 
has  sinned  against  property!  If  he  wishes  to  equal 
English  extravagance  in  this  direction.  It  is  obviously 
his  duty  to  increase  his  income.  Beggars  can't  be 
choosers.  There  is  one  morality  for  the  rich,  an- 
other for  the  poor. 

Economic  inferiority  still  entails  the  most  far- 
reaching  consequences.  No  one  will  venture  to 
deny  that  there  is  one  code  of  conduct  for  the  poor, 
another  for  the  rich.  To  discover  this  did  not  re- 
quire the  adventures  of  Jude  the  Obscure.  With  a 
guinea  a  Connemara  laborer  can  pay  his  year's  rent. 

[  316  ] 


That  same  guinea  will  give  his  landlord  an  opera 
ticket,  or  a  luncheon,  or  a  bottle  of  champagne. 
Were  the  laborer  to  buy  a  similar  opera  ticket  —  not 
a  criminal  indulgence  in  itself  —  he  would  be  guilty 
of  a  monstrous  and  cruel  selfishness.  His  "  state  in 
life  "  commits  him  to  a  life  of  self-denial  —  heroic, 
or  dwarfing,  as  you  choose  to  think.  His  oppor- 
tunities not  merely  for  pleasure  —  because  our 
hypocrisy  as  to  pleasure  vitiates  this  plea  —  but  for 
mental  development  and  growth  are  hideously 
cramped  by  his  poverty,  unless  he  be  a  genius  like 
St.  Francis,  one  of  the  exceptions  who  can  compen- 
sate out  of  his  own  illimitable  powers  for  any  limita- 
tion. That  such  geniuses  exist  among  the  poor  in 
Ireland  I  do  not  for  one  instant  deny.  Like  the 
mountain  ash  or  the  edelweiss,  they  seem  to  thrive 
on  hardship.  Nature  has  taught  them  to  convert  its 
most  grudging  materials  Into  things  of  wondrous 
beauty.  Their  existence  Is  a  living  testimony  to  the 
ingenuity  of  the  human  soul,  to  Its  supreme  powers, 
to  the  resources  and  hidden  treasures  of  human 
nature.  Pressure  has  converted  them  into  gleaming 
and  flawless  spirits.  But  this  Is  not  an  incontro- 
vertible argument  for  vicissitude.  The  bitter  expe- 
rience of  humanity  has  taught  us  to  avoid  vicissitude 
ourselves,  and  to  desire  its  avoidance  for  others  — 
except  those  who,  like  the  Trapplsts  or  the  Poor 
Clares,  seek  the  spiritual  snow-clad  heights.  To  be- 
lieve in  abnegation,  for  others,  is  not  the  mark  of 
extreme  spirituality:  rather  the  reverse.  Enforced 
vicissitude  should  generate  in  us  what  Veblen  calls 
"  the  sentimental  concern  entertained  by  nearly  all 
persons  for  the  life  and  comfort  of  the  community 
at  large,  and  particularly  for  the  community's  future 

[  317  ] 


welfare."  To  close  our  eyes  to  the  destructive  ab- 
negation which  extreme  poverty  enforces  is  to  live  in 
a  complacency  that  is  spiritually  not  less  denuded 
and  cold. 

THE    ESCAPE    FROM   LIFE 

That  complacency,  however,  has  an  enormous  hold 
on  Ireland;  and  before  its  hold  is  broken  Ireland 
may  be  destroyed. 

"  Irish  character  is  to  me,  being  a  local  patriot, 
a  very  precious  and  a  most  beautiful  thing."  It  is 
a  Catholic  bishop  talking.  "  The  tenderness  of  Irish 
character,  the  purity,  the  chastity,  the  domestic  vir- 
tues of  that  character,  are  for  me  the  sovran  values 
of  Irish  nationality.  I  want  to  preserve  them.  I 
want  to  develop  them.  And  so  I  ask  for  home  rule. 
My  ambition  is  that  Ireland  shall  live  in  the  midst 
of  the  nations,  as  it  was  at  the  beginning  of  its 
history,  a  people  that  places  God  first,  a  people  that 
does  not  seek  to  be  rich,  arrogant  and  conquering, 
but  devoted  to  beauty,  consecrated  to  holiness,  con- 
tent with  simple  things.  And  this  does  not  seem  to 
me  a  wild  or  an  unpractical  ambition.  Nature,  in- 
deed, has  ordained  that  this  shall  be  our  destiny. 
We  have  little  but  our  field  and  gardens  to  support 
us;  our  inclination  is  almost  solely  toward  agricul- 
ture; we  have  little  or  no  taste  for  the  excitements 
and  excesses  of  a  civilization  founded  upon  indus- 
trialism. We  are  a  people  who  love  family  life  and 
who  believe  earnestly  and  sincerely  in  the  Christian 
religion. 

"  I  love  to  dream  that  Ireland  may  live  isolated 
and  yet  in  the  midst  of  those  tumultuous  nations  who 
are  abandoned  to  commercialism,  a  place  where  men 

[  318  ] 


may  come  from  other  lands,  as  it  were  to  a  retreat  — 
a  place  where  they  may  refresh  themselves  with  faith 
and  establish  in  quiet  the  central  touch  of  the  soul 
with  God.  I  love  to  think  of  Ireland  peopled  by 
a  humble  and  satisfied  humanity,  the  villages  extend- 
ing through  the  valleys,  the  towns  never  out  of  con- 
tact with  the  fields,  the  cities  famous  for  learning 
and  piety,  the  whole  nation  using  Hfe  for  its  greatest 
end,  Its  ultimate  and  eternal  purpose.  It  would 
surely  be  a  good  thing  for  the  British  empire  to  have 
such  a  sanctuary  at  its  heart.  Might  not  such  an 
Ireland  be  of  service  to  England,  If  only  in  reminding 
your  democracy  that  no  wages  can  buy  happiness? 
Are  you  not  in  some  danger  In  this  respect? 

"  Have  I  made  you  feel,  have  I  convinced  you, 
that  the  Irish  question  Is  a  spiritual  question,  a  re- 
ligious question?  Our  movement  In  its  soul  is  that, 
nothing  but  that.  We  do  not  believe  In  the  strife  of 
industrialism.  We  do  not  believe  in  the  struggle 
for  existence.  We  seek  to  disengage  ourselves  from 
all  that  strife  and  struggle.  Into  which  the  union  has 
dragged  us,  In  order  that  we  may  follow  our  own 
way,  which  is  quiet,  simple,  and  modest.  We  are 
quite  certain  that  materialism  Is  wrong.  What  is 
more  Important,  we  are  quite  certain  that  Idealism  Is 
right.  We  make  the  conscious  choice  of  beauty  and 
peace,  rather  than  ugliness  and  contention.  We  de- 
liberately elect  for  God,  and  as  dehberately  we  reject 
Mammon. 

*'  Under  the  union  we  are  dragged  against  our  will, 
we  a  poor  and  simple  agricultural  people,  into  the 
roaring  machinery  and  the  extravagant  organization 
of  a  rich,  complex  and  Industrial  civilization.  The 
more  you  bear  our  burdens,  the  more  your  paralyze 

[  319  ] 


our  sense  of  responsibility.  The  more  you  advance 
along  your  difficult  road,  the  more  you  drag  us  from 
our  firesides  and  our  fields.  We  do  not  desire  a 
complex  civilization.  We  do  not  want  to  be  sophis- 
ticated. We  dislike  and  we  suspect  the  elaborate 
machinery  of  your  social  life.  We  say  to  you  Set 
us  free :  leave  us  to  pursue  our  own  path,  to  fulfil  our 
own  destiny.   .   .   . 

*'  My  dream  is  the  aspiration  of  the  Irish  people." 

MAMMON 

These  precious  words  were  absorbed  by  Mr. 
Harold  Begble,  to  be  published  as  The  Bishop's 
Dream  in  that  well-meant  contribution  to  Ireland's 
sorrows.  The  Happy  Irish.  The  little  Irish  bishop, 
Mr.  Begbie  tells  us,  rolled  out  his  mind  in  this 
manner  after  the  housekeeper  was  sent  to  bed.  We 
are  given  to  see  the  little  bishop's  "  red  face  wreathed 
with  smiles,  his  small,  deep-sunken  eyes  bright  with 
animation,  his  large  mouth  cheerful  with  good- 
humour."  And  we  are  informed  that  he  is  "  a  very 
remarkable  Roman  Catholic  bishop,"  brilliant,  en- 
gaging and  famous,  who  believes  that  "  by  its  delib- 
erate choice  a  nation  may  walk  quietly  towards 
God." 

If  Irishwomen  are  chaste,  Irishmen  tender  and 
pure,  it  is  a  superiority  in  which  we  are  becomingly 
humble.  Other  nations  may  be  "  abandoned  "  to 
commercialism,  rich,  arrogant  and  conquering.  The 
Irish  seek  to  be  *'  devoted  to  beauty,  consecrated  to 
holiness,  content  with  simple  things."  We  cannot 
help  it.  It  is  our  destiny.  We  are  quite  certain 
that  materialism  Is  wrong.  We  are  quite  certain  that 
idealism  Is  right.     We  elect  for  God.     JVe  reject 

[  320  ] 


Mammon,  "  an  old-fashioned  people,  following  In 
the  footsteps  of  its  ancestors," 

Nothing  Is  more  dangerous  In  Ireland  than  this 
adulation  of  Irishmen,  this  attempt  to  portray  them 
as  a  consecrated  people.  It  Is,  I  know,  the  faith  that 
inspired  a  number  of  the  insurrectionists  of  191 6. 
"  The  Gael  Is,  In  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word,  an 
idealist."  So  Padraic  Pearse  declared  as  early  as 
1898.  And,  with  an  unconscious  adoption  of  a  cor- 
rosive phrase,  he  said,  "  The  Gael  is  not  like  other 
men;  the  spade,  and  the  loom,  and  the  sword  are  not 
for  him.  But  a  destiny  more  glorious  than  that  of 
Rome,  more  glorious  than  that  of  Britain  awaits  him,: 
to  become  the  savior  of  idealism  in  modern  intellec- 
tual and  social  life,  the  regenerator  and  rejuvenator 
of  the  literature  of  the  world,  the  instructor  of  the 
nations,  the  preacher  of  the  gospel  of  nature-worship, 
hero-worship,  God-worship,  such,  Mr.  Chairman,  is 
the  destiny  of  the  Gael." 

The  explanation  of  this  Ideality  is  to  be  found,  I 
believe,  in  the  uninspired  surroundings  of  Pearse's 
youth.  "  Who  can  look  at  our  political  and  na- 
tional life  at  the  present  moment,  and  continue  to 
hope?  The  men  whom  we  call  our  leaders  are  en- 
gaged in  tearing  out  one  another's  vitals,  and  there 
is  no  prospect  they  will  ever  stop."  But  his  gospel, 
none  the  less,  was  a  gospel  with  peculiar  danger  in 
it,  a  gospel  of  escape  from  life. 

In  taking  to  the  "sword,"  seventeen  years  later, 
Pearse  did  what  he  believed  best  to  serve  "  all  that  is 
beautiful,  noble,  true."  Rising  magnificently  out  of 
a  squalid  epoch,  the  men  of  19 16  returned  national 
aspiration  to  the  people  of  Ireland.  But,  to  be 
valid,  national  aspiration  must  do  more  than  execrate 

[  321  ] 


"  the  imbecile  institutions  "  of  life  and  culture.  It 
must  have  institutions  of  its  own,  less  imbecile,  to 
carry  on  the  nation.  And  it  is  here  that  the  anti- 
materialist  has  failed  his  people.  He  has  failed  the 
people  simply  by  not  recognizing  that,  since  poverty 
was  and  is  the  fundamental  handicap  of  Ireland, 
Ireland  is  forced,  first  of  all,  to  face  the  world-wide 
problem  of  abolishing  poverty. 

THE    DANCE    OF    DEATH 

Against  this  conclusion  the  priests,  the  politicians, 
the  romantics  and  the  idyllists  have  fought  and  are 
fighting  hard.  It  is  natural  for  the  propertied  classes 
everywhere  to  veil  the  hideous  realism  of  poverty. 
But  in  Ireland  there  has  been  a  nation-wide  Irish 
conspiracy  against  economic  emancipation.  No  man 
cares  to  acknowledge  he  has  a  deadly  disease.  No 
man  cares  to  own  he  has  a  fatal  weakness.  A  thou- 
sand excuses  will  be  invented  for  postponing  the  diag- 
nosis and  the  surgeon,  the  confession  and  the  long 
up-hill  fight.  But  it  Is  absolutely  useless  to  enamel 
sunken  cheeks  and  brighten  deadened  eyes.  For  a 
hundred  years  Ireland  has  been  rotting  with  poverty. 
It  has  every  vice,  every  cowardice,  every  ignorance, 
every  Insularity,  that  poverty  favors  and  condones. 
They  talk  about  "  the  happy  Irish."  Ireland  has 
been  Insane  with  unhappiness.  From  the  slums  of 
Belfast  to  the  agrarian  slums  of  Kerry,  from  the  in- 
hospitable rocks  of  Donegal  to  the  treeless  forelands 
of  Wexford,  it  has  been  calm  with  the  heavy  calm- 
ness of  a  sick-room  and  dreamy  with  the  dreaminess 
of  privation  and  decay.  There  are  islands  in  its 
dead  sea,  springs  In  Its  desert.  The  European  war 
has  given  it  high  prices  for  agricultural  products  and 

[  322  ] 


much  ready  cash.  But  there  is  scarcely  a  farmhouse, 
and  not  one  solitary  southern  or  northern  town,  that 
has  not  had  poverty  as  its  silent,  voracious  guest  for 
a  hundred  years.  Poverty  has  been  quartered  on  the 
people  like  a  foreign  soldiery.  It  has  had  the  first 
claim  on  health,  the  first  claim  on  vitality,  the  first 
claim  on  ambition,  the  first  claim  on  income.  Day 
by  day  it  has  conducted  the  finest  sons  to  the  emigra- 
tion port.  Day  by  day  it  has  escorted  the  old  to  the 
poorhouse.  The  people  fear  it  as  they  fear  the 
plague.  They  starve  themselves  to  keep  from  starv- 
ing. They  stint  their  growth,  their  comfort,  their 
necessity.  They  contract  loveless  marriages,  they 
endure  tyrannical  relatives,  they  accept  and  inflict  in- 
dignities, to  escape  its  skeleton  embrace.  Poverty 
has  sat  in  sardonic  censorship  on  art  and  literature 
and  science.  It  has  dwarfed  art.  It  has  thinned 
literature.  It  has  precluded  science.  It  has  locked 
the  nineteenth  century  out  of  Ireland.  It  has  kept 
a  beautiful  country  in  wet  and  squalid  rags.  It  has 
imprisoned  Catholic  Ireland  in  ugly  and  joyless 
homes.  It  has  deprived  humanity  of  a  brilliant  na- 
tional contribution.  It  has  greeted  with  slim  laugh- 
ter the  maunderings  of  Daniel  O'Connell  about  Re- 
peal, and  the  frenzies  of  the  Fenians  about  sep- 
aration. The  handsome  landed  gentry  have  kept 
quiet  about  their  hungry  ally.  The  fat  Catholic 
church  has  said  nothing  about  him.  The  pig-eyed 
publican  has  splashed  a  tear  about  poverty,  and 
scraped  £15,000,000  into  his  greasy  till.  The 
shrewd  little  solicitor  has  bemoaned  him,  and  levied 
tribute.  The  gombeen  man  has  not  betrayed  his 
silent  partner,  nor  has  the  National  school-teacher 
given  away  the  taskmaster  who  makes  him  lean  and 

[  323  ] 


Incompetent  and  dull.  Inside  Ireland  itself,  there  is 
nothing  to  declare  that  Poverty  is  king.  It  is  only 
when  one  returns  from  affluent  lands  that  one  walks 
the  roads  of  Ireland  to  behold  poverty.  Sir  Charles 
Cameron  says  that  when  he  was  a  young  man  Dublin 
was  hideous  with  the  victims  of  small-pox.  Today 
Ireland  is  hideous  with  poverty,  pitted  and  scarred 
with  it,  repulsive  with  it,  unclean  with  it,  and,  until 
poverty  is  abolished,  that  beautiful  country  will  be 
peopled  with  the  victims  of  poverty  —  scarred,  re- 
pulsive and  unclean. 

MATERIALISM 
I  believe  in  materialism.  I  believe  the  one  hope 
for  Ireland  is  a  healthy  materialism.  I  believe  in  all 
the  proceeds  of  a  healthy  materialism  —  good  cook- 
ing, dry  houses,  dry  feet,  sewers,  drain-pipes,  hot 
water,  baths,  electric  light,  automobiles,  good  roads, 
bright  streets,  long  vacations  away  from  the  village 
pump,  new  ideas,  fast  horses,  swift  conversation, 
theatres,  operas,  orchestras,  bands  —  I  believe,  in 
short,  in  practically  everything  which  (except  the 
horses)  is  now  the  exclusive  perquisite  of  the  Anglo- 
Irish  parasites.  I  believe  in  them  all,  for  everybody. 
The  man  who  dies  without  knowing  these  things  may 
be  as  exquisite  as  a  saint,  and  as  rich  as  a  poet;  but 
it  is  in  spite,  not  because,  of  his  deprivation.  The 
poets  and  saints  have  decried  these  things.  They 
have  revered  the  peasant  bowed  with  honest  toil. 
They  have  saluted  the  farmhouse  madonna  looking 
on  her  herded  sheep  with  pure  and  starry  eyes.  But 
it  has  been  my  misfortune  to  see  that  same  honest 
peasant  drunk  on  fusil  whisky,  to  see  that  same  ma- 
donna spitting  tuberculous  blood.     When  the  ma- 

[  324  ] 


donna  has  a  baby,  there  is  a  definite  chance  that  she 
will  feed  the  baby  tea  out  of  a  milk-bottle,  and  there 
is  almost  a  certainty  that  the  milk-bottle  will  have  a 
dirty  nipple.  Not  many  of  your  poets  write  poems 
about  dirty  milk-bottles.  The  Saints,  for  that  mat- 
ter, are  adopted  by  the  leisure  class,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  the  other  class  cannot  afford  to  label  their 
saints.  Materialism  is,  of  course,  denounced  in  the 
drawing-room.  It  is  usual  to  hear  ladies  pause 
over  terrapin  to  become  rapturous  about  the  Simple 
Life.  But  it  is  only  a  frost-bitten  genius  like 
Thoreau  who  really  samples  the  Simple  Life. 
(Thoreau  died  of  tuberculosis  at  44.)  There  is 
no  necessity  to  make  life  any  simpler  than  it  has 
to  be  for  a  moderately  honest  man.  The  real  thing 
Is  to  complicate  it  —  complicate  it  with  refinement, 
sensitiveness,  ascending  effort  and  extending  choice. 
For  cows,  even,  life  may  be  too  simple.  There  Is 
nothing  simple  about  the  environment  of  a  £1000 
cow.  What  Is  good  for  a  cow  Is  not  too  good  for  a 
child,  woman  or  man.  What  I  should  like  is  to  see 
the  Irish  people  put  on  a  plane  within  hailing  dis- 
tance of  the  plane  of  pedigree  cattle.  The  ambition 
is  too  high,  at  present,  but  It  is  my  wildest  dream  for 
the  democracy  of  Ireland. 

While  there  Is  no  alliance  between  virtue  and 
wealth,  there  Is  equally  no  alliance  between  virtue 
and  poverty.  Epictetus  was  a  slave.  Aurelius  was 
an  emperor.  If  commercialism  were  the  only  es- 
cape from  poverty,  I  should  prefer  Ireland  a  slat- 
tern to  Ireland  a  worldling.  What  confronts  us, 
however,  is  no  such  academic  alternative.  The  pov- 
erty of  Ireland  is  today  the  very  agent  of  commer- 
cialism.    Commercialism  does  not  despise  the  poor. 

[  325  ] 


Commercialism  gets  far  bigger  profits  out  of  the 
poor  than  out  of  the  rich.  Commercialism  tenderly 
loves  the  poor.  And  the  commercialism  of  Eng- 
land is  at  the  present  hour  vulgarising  Ireland  from 
Dublin  to  Bundoran  in  the  north  and  to  Cahirciveen 
in  the  south.  It  is  hard  to  contaminate  springwater. 
The  agricultural  life  is  marvelously  disinfectant. 
But  the  taste  for  novelty  is  insidious.  A  capitalized 
foreign  culture,  however  inferior,  can  compete  with 
a  poor  homespun  culture,  however  lovely.  Unless 
Ireland  pays  for  its  own  culture,  it  will  soon  take 
what  the  poor  get  everywhere,  the  "  seconds,"  the 
"  thirds,"  of  the  culture  concocted  by  Lord  North- 
cliffe.  Ireland  will  have  to  pay  as  well  as  England 
for  Northcliffe's  discovery  that  there  is  a  large  profit 
in  a  homogeneity  of  bad  taste. 

To  make  Ireland  prosperous  without  making  her 
meretricious  —  that  is  the  first  problem  of  Irish 
statesmanship. 

THE    SI.NN   FEIN    POLICY 

It  is  here  that  the  Catholic  church,  the  Irish 
parliamentary  party  and  the  Sinn  Feiners  have  failed 
to  save  Ireland  and  have  played  into  the  hands  of 
Ulster.  In  1905,  it  is  perfectly  true,  Mr.  Arthur 
Griffith  enunciated  an  economic  programme,  "  the 
'  Sinn  Fein  '  policy,"  covering  Irish  education,  Irish 
industries,  Irish  capital,  the  merchant  marine,  for- 
eign trade,  transit,  banking.  But  the  attack  he  made 
on  English  political  economy  In  favor  of  Frederick 
List  was  sublimated  by  later  Sinn  Feiners  into  an 
attack  on  all  political  economy.  "  Political  economy 
was  invented,  not  by  Adam  Smith,  but  by  the  devil. 
Be  certain  that  in  political  economy  there  is  no  Way 

[  326] 


of  Life  either  for  a  man  or  for  a  people.  Life  for 
both  is  a  matter,  not  of  conflicting  tariffs,  but  of 
conflicting  powers  of  good  and  evil;  and  what  have 
Ricardo  and  Malthus  and  Stuart  Mill  to  teach  about 
this?"  Here  the  escape  from  life  was  glorified  by 
the  cry,  "  Ye  men  and  peoples,  burn  your  books  on 
rent  theories  and  land  values,  and  go  back  to  your 
sagas."  This  was  not  at  all  what  Arthur  Griflith 
designed.  He  believed  with  List,  "  Only  in  the  soil 
of  general  prosperity  does  the  national  spirit  strike 
its  root,  produce  fine  blossoms  and  rich  fruits  —  only 
from  the  unity  of  material  interests  does  mental 
power  arise  and  again  from  both  of  them  national 
power."  This  was  a  frontal  attack  on  the  enormous 
problem,  and  had  Britain  been  on  a  level  with 
Austria,  Ireland  might  have  emulated  Hungary. 
But  the  Ingredient  of  battle  In  Arthur  Grifl'ith's 
composition  was  not  as  effectual  as  in  Parnell's. 

In  the  House  of  Commons  Parnell  had  what 
Griffith  lacked  —  a  contact  with  the  enemy.  Where 
Parnell  could  injure,  Grlflfith  could  only  fulminate. 
It  was  Indisputable  that  Great  Britain's  share  of 
total  trade  was  98.3  to  Ireland's  1.7,  but  the  remedy 
of  sending  Irishmen  to  act  as  consuls  in  foreign 
countries  was  too  heroic  a  remedy.  It  gave  a  na- 
tion without  capital  no  fulcrum.  The  only  fulcrum 
practicable  in  Ireland  was  the  agricultural.  What 
Denmark  has  done  Ireland  could  do,  and  more. 
But  Mr.  Arthur  Griffith  had  In  him  something  of 
that  lofty  intransigence  which  declines  to  make  terms 
with  society  as  It  is.  The  tragedy  of  Ireland  had 
made  him  vengeful  as  well  as  sorrowful.  His  pride 
demanded  a  popular  consecration,  a  spirit  in  regard 
to  England  that  had  in  It  the  scorn  of  Swift,  the  stiff 

[  337  ] 


neck  of  John  Mitchel,  the  serpent  wisdom  of 
Nietzsche.  When  one  thinks  of  the  respectable 
EngHsh  statesman  —  Campbell  Bannerman,  for  in- 
stance —  this  pure  rage  seems  like  using  hell-fire  to 
boil  a  kettle.  It  was  not  in  Mr.  Griffith,  as  some 
might  infer,  to  "  hatch  basilisk's  eggs,  and  weave 
the  spider's  web."  A  more  honorable  being,  as  I 
conceive  him,  could  not  be  discovered.  But  he  loved 
his  ideal  of  Sinn  Fein  jealously.  He  would  not 
recognize  in  existing  agricultural  Ireland  the  fulcrum 
that  was  to  be  found  there.  He  preferred  to  flash 
lightning  from  his  heights.  The  result,  ten  years 
after  the  policy  was  enunciated,  was  by  no  means 
the  splendid  particularism  that  he  had  intended. 
Irish-American  capital  was  no  more  captivated  than 
before.  The  canals  of  Ireland  were  still  sluggard. 
The  consulates  were  still  British.  The  Irish  stock 
exchange  was  still  a  puny  government  agency.  The 
merchant  marine  was  still  non-existent.  Whatever 
improvements  had  come  in  university  education  had 
come  by  the  aid  of  the  state.  But  the  shining  anger 
of  Arthur  Griffith  had  fascinated  the  best  youth  of 
Ireland,  and  England  had  justified  that  anger  in  a 
hundred  ways.  Mr.  Walter  Long  had  filched  the 
fees  that  were  to  reward  the  study  of  Gaelic.  The 
Liberals  had  done  their  best  to  shelve  the  issue  of 
home  rule.  Mr.  Asquith  and  Mr.  Churchill  and 
Lord  Loreburn  had  trimmed  and  shilly-shallied. 
Backed  by  the  army,  Sir  Edward  Carson  had  woven 
himself  in  and  out  of  "  treasonable  conspiracy  "  as 
if  it  were  a  matter  for  ingenious  legalism,  like  in- 
troducing just  the  right  proportion  of  smut  into  one 
of  the  fashionable  divorce  cases.  The  English 
political  prima  donnas  had  sung  God  Save  Ireland 

[  328  ] 


when  the  war  came,  but  It  was  not  long  after  Queens- 
town  harbor  had  been  boycotted  by  the  Cunard  line 
and  It  was  only  a  fortnight  after  British  troops  had 
shot  Into  a  crowd  of  unarmed  Dublin  citizens,  and 
gone  free.  The  police  official  who  had  called  out 
the  military  was,  indeed,  got  rid  of,  but  the  govern- 
ment took  him  back  elsewhere  In  a  little  while.  And 
the  police  thereafter  were  kept  on  the  heels  of  every 
critic  of  England.  So  shabby  were  the  govern- 
mental evasions,  the  extenuations,  so  silly  the  at- 
tempts to  beguile  and  to  hoodwink,  that  the  finest  na- 
tive Irishmen  sickened  of  English  government  and 
had  no  stomach  for  the  war.  Sinn  Fein  became  un- 
compromising by  processes  absolutely  open  to  the 
casual  eye.  Drop  by  drop  English  mismanagement 
loaded  the  mixture  for  explosion.  And  explosion 
was  all  the  more  Inevitable  because  the  parliamen- 
tarians had  never  once  dealt  with  the  rich  Impulses 
back  of  separatlstic  Sinn  Fein. 

Except  for  James  Connolly's  contingent,  the  rebels 
of  19 1 6  had  little  economic  preoccupation.  There 
was  nothing  In  the  lofty  nationalism  of  the  insur- 
rection to  show  that  poverty  was  regarded  as  a 
corroding  national  evil,  or  that  a  new  attitude  toward 
poverty  is  essential  to  national  welfare. 

THE    REVOLUTIONISTS 

It  Is  important,  in  considering  Arthur  Griffith 
and  the  economic  policy  which  he  matured  on  paper, 
to  realize  that  his  antagonism  to  England  Is  really 
a  sort  of  Individualist  antagonism.  Like  MItchel 
and  Parnell,  Arthur  Griffith  stands  outside  the  move- 
ment of  the  whole  people.  The  Irish  patriot,  John 
MItchel,  differed  In  Idiom  from  the  English  repub- 

[  329  ] 


lican,  John  Milton,  but  it  was  quite  consistent  with 
Milton's  one-sidedness  that  in  the  end  Mitchel 
should  have  been  found  upholding  the  slave-owners 
in  the  Civil  War.  John  Mitchel  did  not  wear  God 
on  his  banner,  but  he  was  essentially  a  militant 
crusader.  Born  in  Ireland,  he  resented  the  oligar- 
chic pretensions  of  England,  but  he  resented  them 
as  an  encroachment  upon  his  own  conscience  and 
character.  He  was  an  intense  individualist,  insus- 
ceptible to  democratic  moralism.  He  never  shared 
the  ordinary  democratic  conceptions  of  equality,  jus- 
tice and  indulgence.  He  hated  the  ideas  of  central- 
ization, compromise  and  "  progress."  He  had  the 
pride,  the  sophistication,  the  capacity  for  scorn  and 
hatred  that  go  with  intense  individualism,  and  he 
despised  the  flexibility  and  impartiality  of  men  like 
Mazzini.  Humanitarianism  was  for  him  an  in- 
vertebrate and  nerveless  creed.  Big-hearted  and 
responsive,  he  invincibly  resisted  the  deflection  of 
his  own  elected  purposes.  In  regard  to  these,  he 
was  a  man  of  blood-and-steel,  private-spirited  rather 
than  public-spirited,  akin  to  the  aristocrat  and  the 
conservative. 

Similarly  private-spirited  was  Parnell.  It  was 
absolutely  consistent  for  Parnell  to  assert  his  per- 
sonal passion  against  the  will  of  the  compact  major- 
ity. Accident  made  him  a  parliamentarian,  but  he 
was  a  cold-blooded  tactician,  amenable  to  liberal  con- 
siderations but  utterly  immune  from  liberal  sympa- 
thies. The  romantic  notion  of  the  "  brotherhood  of 
man "  disgusted  Parnell.  He  sought,  like  John 
Mitchel,  to  establish  in  Ireland  a  constitution  that 
would  give  to  his  own  nature  its  fullest  possible 
scope.     The   indecency   and   indignity   of   personal 

[  330  ] 


subjection  rowelled  Parnell  like  a  spur  with  teeth 
in  it.  But  if  other  men  did  not  equally  resent  sub- 
jection, so  much  the  worse  for  them.  He  was  em- 
phatically not  his  brother's  keeper.  Like  Mitchel, 
he  was  magnanimous,  and  compassionate  of  the 
Irish  barbarians.  But  when  it  came  to  a  choice  be- 
tween those  barbarians  and  the  rights  of  his  private 
spirit  he  renounced  them  as  he  would  have  renounced 
cattle.  Of  his  own  nature.  Himself,  he  owed  them 
nothing.  For  him,  as  for  Mitchel,  the  struggle  of 
life  was  essentially  competitive.  In  the  competition 
he  went  far  enough  out  of  himself  to  identify  him- 
self with  his  nation.  But  he  neither  aimed  nor  de- 
sired to  transcend  these  limits,  nor  did  he  seek  for 
one  moment  to  alter  the  competitive  struggle.  He 
believed  that  Gladstone's  aims  were  equally  com- 
petitive, only  emoUIent  and  sweet  in  method.  He 
preferred  to  interpret  him  as  a  competitor  working 
hypocritically  to  interpreting  him  as  a  cooperator 
working  humanely.  It  was  Inconceivable  to  Parnell 
that  one  could  submit  any  fundamental  desire  to  the 
ratification  of  a  conference.  One  might  as  well  in- 
vite a  committee  to  select  one's  wife. 

So  with  Mr.  Griffith.  A  voice  crying  in  the 
wilderness,  he  has  carried  his  wilderness  with  him. 
The  economics  of  Ireland  were  secondary  to  his 
hatred  of  England,  stones  of  wrath  in  a  Ulysses  bat- 
tle against  the  Manchesterian  Cyclops. 

THE    PARLIAMENTARIANS 

The  parliamentary  party  never  had  a  genuine 
economic  policy,  outside  land  purchase.  Its  one  am-, 
bition  was  to  haggle  for  and  to  boast  about  state  aid. 
It  got  very  little  state  aid,  all  things  considered,  but 

[  331  ] 


It  made  the  most  of  It  whenever  It  recounted  Its 
achievements.  The  party  too  often  came  back  from 
Westminster  as  If  returning  from  a  foray  on  the 
treasury.  It  translated  Irish  politics  Into  the  lan- 
guage of  the  pork-barrel.  This  was  the  dominant 
element  In  its  economic  policy.  Above  and  beyond 
there  was  nothing  to  lift  up  Ireland.  It  had  no 
creative  scheme. 

"  The  fifth  object  of  the  Land  and  National 
Leagues,"  says  the  19 15  report  of  the  United  Irish 
League,  "  was  the  development  and  the  encourage- 
ment of  the  labor  and  industrial  Interests  of  Ire- 
land. ...  In  season  and  out  of  season,  In  parlia- 
ment and  In  the  country,  the  Irish  party  has  been 
unceasing  in  Its  efforts  to  develop  and  to  encourage 
Irish  labor  and  industrial  Interests.  ...  It  has,  by 
every  means  at  its  command,  endeavored  to  encour- 
age and  to  foster  Irish  arts,  Industries,  and  manu- 
factures, to  create  a  home  market  for  Irish  produce, 
and  to  facilitate  In  every  way  the  development  of 
Irish  trade  and  commerce,  both  at  home  and  abroad, 
and  in  this  way  it  has  laid  the  foundation  for  a 
great  industrial  future  for  our  country  under  the 
fostering  care  of  the  new  Irish  parliament." 

There  Is  not  a  great  deal  to  be  said  about  this 
eloquence. 

When  an  Irishman  goes  afield  he  soon  meets  the 
ecstatic  lady  who  asks:  "  Oh,  do  you  really  believe 
in  fairies?  "  If  he  has  eaten  of  the  tree  of  knowl- 
edge, he  regards  her  with  an  evil  eye.  It  would  be 
a  strange  thing  If  that  same  Irishman,  sane  and 
sceptical  to  the  core,  had  found  the  fairies  out  merely 
to  take  the  fakirs  In.  Instead  of  feeling  credulity 
about  the  truly  magic  world,  as  befits  an  Irishman, 

[  332  ] 


has  he  begun  to  Invest  with  magic  the  things  that 
are  hollow  and  vain?  He  is  no  longer  wistful  about 
his  crock  of  gold.  Is  he  wistfulness  itself  about 
an  imaginary  act  of  a  hypothetical  parliament? 
The  myths  of  the  sun  and  stars  are  an  empty  tale. 
Are  the  myths  of  Westminster  as  gospel?  Are  the 
"  good  people  "  M.Ps  with  pot  bellies? 

If  Irishmen  are  to  know  the  real  world,  the  world 
of  cause  and  effect,  they  had  better  revive  the  faith 
in  fairies.  It  is  bad  to  repress  myth-making  in  the 
fields  if  it  is  going  to  survive  on  the  platforms. 

WHY    ULSTER    DOUBTS 

But  the  attitude  of  Ulster,  in  this  regard,  Is  too 
ferociously  unfriendly.  Where  the  failure  of  the 
Irish  parliamentary  party  has  been  principally  due 
to  Its  agrarian  preoccupations,  the  Ulster  manufac- 
turer has  set  It  down  to  wild  and  nefarious  greed. 
A  chorus  of  powerful  protest  arose  In  Ulster  when 
the  home  rule  bill  was  drafted.  One  vocal  manu- 
facturer assaulted  the  bill  partly  because  "  the  pro- 
visions of  the  bill  have  been  designed  to  enable  the 
non-manufacturing  Interests  to  penalize  and  finan- 
cially bleed  the  manufacturing  Interests  of  Ireland  " 
and  partly  because  "  those  sentimentally  good  people 
in  Great  Britain  who  want  to  force  home  rule  upon 
us  may  have  In  their  minds  the  Idea  that  their  own 
competitive  business  Interests  In  Great  Britain  would 
gain  by  having  the  manufacturing  Industries  of  Ire- 
land completely  destroyed,  and  more  especially  the 
flourishing  ones  of  Ulster;  but,  of  course,  on  the 
other  hand,  there  are  those  who  find  In  Ireland,  and 
In  Ulster  In  particular,  good  customers  for  their 
wares." 

[  333  ] 


These  arguments  deal  with  evil  Intentions  rather 
than  evil  acts;  they  have  their  counterpart  in  the 
stout  Republicanism  of  Pennsylvania  discoursing  on 
the  hay-seediness  of  the  Democrats  from  Jefferson 
down.  The  only  possible  answer  Is  psychological. 
"  I  can  conceive  no  task  I  should  enter  upon  with 
greater  confidence  of  success,"  said  Sir  Horace 
Plunkett  in  July,  19 14,  "than  organizing  a  move- 
ment In  agricultural  Ireland  for  making  the  people 
understand  the  duty  and  wisdom  of  meeting  every 
reasonable  demand  of  the  Industrial  classes  for  ev- 
ery facility  and  protection  they  need  In  the  building 
up  of  their  side  of  the  national  life." 

Sir  Horace  Plunkett's  answer  Is  vitally  Important. 
No  one,  as  I  have  shown,  was  less  sentimentally  II- 
luded  about  the  southern  Irishman  than  he  himself 
In  his  book  in  1904.  After  ten  years'  further  ex- 
perience of  rural  Ireland  and  a  full  study  of  the  co- 
operative movement  and  the  department  of  agri- 
culture he  testified  unreservedly  in  their  favor  in 
19 14.  Of  the  department  of  agriculture  he  de- 
clared: "I  do  claim,  and  I  believe  every  Ulster- 
man  acquainted  with  Its  working  will  acknowledge, 
that  this  body,  controlled  in  Its  working  by  a  ma- 
jority of  Southern  Irishmen,  has  behaved,  on  the 
whole,  with  justice  and  Intelligence.  Good  feeling 
and  good  sense  are  the  main  qualities  required  to 
make  home  rule  work,  and  to  prevent  damage  to 
the  business  Interests  of  any  part  of  the  country. 
The  Southern  Irish  have  displayed  these  qualities 
conspicuously  in  the  management  of  the  two  great 
organizations  covering  the  whole  country;  is  there 
any  reason  to  believe  that  they  will  not  display  them 
again  If  the  opportunity  Is  offered?  " 

[  334  ] 


Plain  lack  of  acquaintanceship,  unfortunately,  has 
a  good  deal  to  do  with  Ulster's  scepticism.  In  spite 
of  the  powerful  bourgeois  element  in  Belfast,  the 
aristocratic  idea  of  Paddie  and  Paddie's  pig  is  still 
accepted  in  business  circles;  and  business  retains  an 
impression,  refreshed  by  the  A.  O.  H.,  of  political 
cliques  that  keep  alive  the  old  unrest  of  Fenianism 
and  agrarian  jacqueries. 

Too  many  people  have  taken  their  idea  of  the 
Irish  peasant  proprietor  from  the  Anglo-Irish  land- 
lord, the  Anglo-Irish  humorist,  the  London  Times 
and  Punch.  Although  Ulster  does  not  know  it,  Pad- 
die  was  largely  the  invention  of  a  class  that  lived  by 
the  sweat  of  Paddle's  brow.  He  is  the  landlord's 
Paddie,  the  Paddie  of  whom  anecdotes  are  told  in 
the  country-house,  the  home  of  the  Island  Pharisees. 
When  the  "peasant"  (delightful  word)  revolts 
against  a  love  that  is  conditioned  on  submissiveness, 
he  is  reproached  as  insolent.  Impudent  and  imperti- 
nent. Those  words  are  still  on  the  lips  of  Irish 
gentlefolk.  They  are  on  the  lips  of  the  parvenus 
as  well  as  the  "  old  stock."  They  typify  the  ex- 
pectations of  the  feudal.  And  they  provoke  in  hot- 
blooded  youth,  emigrant  or  non-emigrant,  a  self- 
assertion  which  is  the  declaration  of  class-hatred  and 
class-war.  It  is  significant  that  government  officials, 
professional  men  and  sometimes  priests  —  though 
these  rarely  —  look  for  signs  that  a  man  "  knows  his 
place."  One  even  hears  of  the  squireen  slashing  the 
awkward  fellow  who  does  not  get  out  of  his  way. 
The  submissiveness  of  the  people,  as  distinguished 
from  their  courtesy,  is  still  apparent  to  anyone  who 
has  motored  through  the  country.  Hundreds  of  the 
country  people  salute  the  strangers  who  go  rolling 

C  335  ] 


by  in  this  chariot  of  class.  And  yet  there  are 
"  peasants  "  who  writhe  at  servility.  The  County 
Clare  is  not  servile.  Neither,  for  that  matter, 
is  the  long  Anglicized  Queen's  County.  By  the 
Rock  of  Dunamase  I  once  chatted  with  a  spare, 
elderly  man  who  had  "  travelled  the  world,"  and 
I  asked  him  how  he  had  liked  working  in  murky 
Liverpool,  compared  with  this  beautiful  domain. 
"  I  liked  it  well."  "  How  so?  "  "  Ah,  there  was 
no  salaaming  over  there." 

AN    ECONOMIC    PROGRAMME 

In  the  cooperative  movement  rural  Ireland  has 
begun  to  apply  a  true  programme  of  economic  de- 
mocracy, cleanly  independent  of  the  state,  and  the 
development  of  this  programme  is  the  one  big  hope 
of  the  future. 

In  capitalizing  the  Irish  tenants,  the  government 
has  abolished  landlordism,  but  in  substituting  a  big 
number  of  small  proprietors  for  a  small  number  of 
big  landlords,  it  has  not  prevented  the  possibility  of 
proprietorship  turning  into  landlordism  again.  No 
one  can  deny  that  proprietorship  tends  to  turn  into 
landlordism.  In  the  United  States  the  number  of 
tenants  —  though  principally  share  tenants  —  is  in- 
creasing. In  the  State  of  Ohio,  for  example,  there 
were  actually  fewer  farms  operated  by  owners  in 
19 10  than  there  were  in  1880.  But  the  number  of 
tenants  nearly  doubled.  It  rose  from  47,627  to 
77,188.  With  this  tendency,  and  its  effect  on  democ- 
racy, the  advocate  of  peasant  proprietorship  must 
be  prepared  to  deal.  It  opens  up,  on  a  new  side, 
the  old  problem  of  property  and  parasitism;  and  a 
parasitism,  too,  which  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 

[  336  ] 


rightful  dependence  of  very  young  and  very  old 
people,  and  people  consecrated  to  non-lucrative  ac- 
tivity. 

But  more  immediate  is  the  social  effect  of  pro- 
prietorship on  men  who  before  had  no  stake  in  the 
commonwealth.  It  is  now  supposed  that  because 
thi^  stake  is  a  personal  one,  the  peasant  proprietary 
will  become  inordinately  and  sordidly  conservative. 
Their  lives  were  overshadowed  before  by  the  neces- 
sity of  paying  rent.  If  they  failed  in  this  respect, 
however,  they  lost  no  security.  Now  their  annual 
obligation  is  personally  serious.  They  are  bound 
to  their  vocation  by  the  clearest  self-interest. 

According  to  one  kind  of  economist,  self-interest 
is  the  foundation  of  all  utility.  But  no  one  who  has 
observed  the  pusillanimity  of  the  Irish  railroads  can 
quite  believe  that.  There  is  such  a  thing  as  capital- 
izing the  worm  in  human  nature,  rewarding  solvency 
at  the  expense  of  creativeness.  Solvency  is  the  aim 
of  small  proprietorship.  There  remains  the  ques- 
tion of  creativeness. 

With  a  peasant  proprietary  established,  there  is 
only  one  policy  which  saves  it  from  narrow  and 
grinding  conservatism.  That  is  the  policy  advo- 
cated and  promoted  by  Sir  Horace  Plunkett,  co- 
operation. Cooperation  Is  creativeness.  It  Is  the 
one  order  of  creativeness  consistent  with  agricul- 
tural private  property.  It  is  the  one  social  method 
that  will  keep  the  proprietors  from  becoming  futile 
islanders,  little  custodians  of  self-interest  living  in 
a  state  of  armed  neutrality  with  the  world.  All  the 
fine  quahties  that  are  submerged  in  men  whose  wealth 
consists  in  agricultural  rather  than  human  relations 
—  defensive  wealth,  wealth  ensuring  parasitism  — 

[  337  ] 


have  a  chance  in  cooperation.  Cooperation  Is  the 
only  alternative  to  predatory  activity  In  agricultural 
Ireland.  It  is  the  only  policy  that  brings  to  the 
peasant  proprietor  that  emancipation  of  which  own- 
ership is  a  single  element.  It  is  the  only  policy  that 
elicits  his  full  citizenship.  Otherwise,  he  will  con- 
centrate on  the  chances  of  jealously  personal  advan- 
tage. Preserving  his  insularity  and  ignorance,  he 
will  acquire  money  by  those  courses  in  which  one 
is  strengthened  but  also  brutalized.  He  will  ■ 
achieve  power,  but  it  will  be  derived  from  things  en- 
slaved, not  things  enriched.  And  his  only  fraternal 
associates  will  be  the  dogs  who  don't  eat  dogs  like 
himself. 

There  is  nothing  idyllic  in  cooperation,  but  out 
of  it  promises  to  come  a  civilized  rural  life;  and 
with  rural  prosperity  Ireland  will  doubly  need  this 
trellis-work  of  civilization.  There  are  already 
thousands  of  Irish  phllistines  to  whom  life  offers 
no  national  sense  whatever,  and  who  find  their 
heart's  desire  not  In  the  poet's  Isles  of  the  Blest, 
but  in  the  bank  clerk's  Isle  of  Man.  Between  the 
romanticism  that  employs  trite  and  theatrical  images, 
and  the  phillstlnism  that  has  no  images  outside  of 
moving  pictures,  there  is  an  Ireland  with  as  con- 
siderable an  opportunity  of  civilization  as  any  na- 
tion on  earth.  Harsh  as  the  history  of  Ireland  has 
been,  vulgar  or  discouraged  as  much  of  its  life  Is 
today,  it  remains  a  country  with  the  finest  possi- 
bilities of  vital  and  noble  existence.  The  word 
"  noble  "  may,  if  you  like,  be  taken  as  negligible 
rhetoric.  But  unless  Ireland  fortifies  the  institu- 
tions that  safeguard  nobility  It  is  certain  to  become 
a  squalid  annex  to  commercialized  England,  a  back 

[  338  ] 


lot  for  raising  English  butcher's  meat  and  army  re- 
mounts, with  a  few  "  beauty  spots  "  for  the  delecta- 
tion of  trlpsters. 

In  Ireland  itself  there  are  hundreds  of  its  clever- 
est men  hurrying  the  country  in  this  vulgarization 
and  ineptitude.  They  are  doing  it  unconsciously. 
They  have  caught  the  contagion  of  commercialism, 
and  they  succumb  to  it,  as  savages  to  whisky.  To 
build  a  moral  breakwater  against  such  inundation 
is  a  futile  proceeding.  It  is  like  the  attempt  of 
Vigilance  Committees  to  keep  the  youth  of  Ireland 
pure  by  effort  of  the  will.  The  salvation  of  Ire- 
land cannot  be  effected  just  by  moral  propaganda. 
The  country  cannot  be  treated  as  a  prostrate  and 
inert  mass,  to  be  supported  by  props  and  cushions. 
By  works  as  well  as  faith  must  it  be  saved,  by  or- 
ganization that  defeats  profiteering  and  frees  men 
from  subjection  to  profiteers.  And  cooperation,  as 
the  north  star  of  Ireland  —  George  Russell  —  has 
so  truly  and  invariably  and  pitilessly  indicated,  is  the 
principle  by  which  rural  Ireland  may  hope  to  be 
immortally  as  well  as  mortally  saved. 

THE    ENEMY   OF    IRELAND 

The  organized  attack  on  poverty  must  be  reckoned 
the  first  step  in  liberating  Ireland.  The  evil  of 
poverty  Is  not  hardship.  In  the  life  of  a  soldier, 
an  explorer  or  even  a  captain  of  Industry,  there 
may  be  far  greater  hardships  than  afflict  the  poor. 
What  makes  poverty  evil  is  the  powerlessness  to 
which  its  victims  are  subject.  In  a  natural  environ- 
ment man  is  enslaved  by  weakness.  Unless  the 
weak  man  receives  aid  to  compensate  for  his  limita- 
tions, he  is  forced  under,  kept  under,  and  destroyed. 

[  339  ] 


The  competitive  habit  selects  strong  and  cunning 
men  to  dominate  those  who  are  less  strong  and  less 
cunning,  and  to  struggle  among  each  other  for  the 
rewards  of  leadership.  But  in  this  penalization  of 
weakness  there  is  a  crude  natural  justice.  Where 
nature  has  already  marked  the  weak  for  extermina- 
tion, extermination  does  not  vitiate  the  race. 

But  In  an  artincial  environment  poverty  is  a 
synonym  for  penalty.  During  the  helplessness  of 
infancy,  the  poor  are  not  merely  inflicted  with  hard- 
ship. They  are  marred  for  life.  Compared  with 
the  child  whose  nurture  is  capitalized  during  the 
helpless  years,  the  child  of  the  poor  is  doomed. 
In  spite  of  famous  exceptions,  the  child  of  the  poor 
is  handicapped  out  of  the  race  from  the  start.  Com- 
ing potential  from  his  mother's  womb,  he  stands  far 
less  chance  of  actual  survival.  If  he  does  survive, 
he  survives  with  an  inferior  organism.  Poverty 
has  affected  his  powers  of  resistance,  his  stamina 
and  his  capacity.  It  has  put  him  at  the  wrong  end 
of  the  horn  of  plenty,  from  which  he  must  extract 
what  he  needs  with  ferocious  hands;  but  also  it  has 
taught  him  hopelessness  and  resignation,  and  given 
him  a  body  to  confirm  the  lesson. 

According  to  the  law  of  competition,  this  degraded 
human  being  must  take  his  chances  with  the  children 
of  the  capitalized.  Here  poverty  is  perpetuated. 
Against  well-nurtured  children,  children  whose  famil- 
ies have  at  their  command  the  resources  of  an  arti- 
ficial environment,  the  ill-nurtured  children  have  not 
an  equal  chance.  Neither  group  is  immune  from 
mistakes  or  self-destructive  vice.  But  in  the  case  of 
the  capitalized,  mistakes  and  self-indulgence  are  less 

[  340  ] 


harmful  because  their  class  has  the  power  to  com- 
mute. If  they  fall,  they  fall  into  a  protective  net. 
If  the  poor  fall,  on  the  contrary,  their  class  is  in- 
finitely less  powerful  to  forestall  the  punishment  of 
society.  There  is  one  law  for  the  rich,  another  for 
the  poor,  only  because  property  is  able  to  qualify 
the  law.  Everyone  who  is  poor  or  who  knows  the 
poor  knows  their  tendency  to  succor,  to  console  and 
to  condone.  But  their  organization  is  loose  and 
ineffectual.  Time,  the  time  that  allows  for  recup- 
eration, is  their  enemy.  Their  defalcation  is  regis- 
tered as  soon  as  it  is  committed,  their  credit  is  mor- 
ally short,  their  rate  of  interest  high.  Theirs  is  a 
narrow  road  where  a  false  step  means  a  loss,  not 
of  luxury  and  comfort,  but  raiment,  shelter  and 
food.  Their  margin  demands  a  standard  of  con- 
duct inversely  proportioned  to  their  income.  If  pov- 
erty ceases  to  be  holy,  it  is  branded  vicious  overnight. 
This  is  the  reason  why  the  poor  make  up  the  great 
majority  of  the  criminal  classes.  They  are  huddled 
together  on  a  restive  island  of  needs,  surrounded  by 
a  sea  of  temptations  which  Is  peopled  by  the  sharks 
of  the  law. 

It  is  not  any  special  love  of  the  poor  that  makes 
the  democrat  wish  to  see  this  changed.  It  Is  his 
hatred  of  the  waste  of  life.  Men  talk  of  healthy 
competition.  There  is  a  competition  that  Is  un- 
healthy to  the  depths  of  Infamy.  Our  life  is  possi- 
bly a  mere  journey  from  one  eternal  darkness  to 
another.  We  may  be  mere  spawn  of  the  earth,  and 
our  religions  a  cosmic  fable,  but  whether  we  adopt 
the  material  or  the  mystical  version  of  experience, 
we  surely  unite  in  revolting  against  the  factors  that 

[  341  ] 


defeat  the  will  to  live.  Poverty  is  undesirable  in 
proportion  as  it  defeats  this  will  to  live;  and  it  Is 
evil  in  proportion  as  It  is  unnecessary.  That  it  is 
unnecessary,  more  the  result  of  culpable  selfishness 
than  culpable  weakness,  is  the  inspiration  of  all  so- 
cial reform. 

The  particularism  of  Ulster  is  one  Item  in  the 
fight  on  poverty.  The  particularism  of  the  employer 
and  the  middleman  Is  another.  Irish  labor  is  still 
an  infant  too  weak  to  stand  by  Itself,  the  victim  of 
every  provincialism  and  ignorance,  the  bullied  serv- 
ant of  stupid  urban  life.  When  the  dreamers  of 
Ireland  A  Civilization  give  up  the  fight  on  poverty, 
the  practical  and  Immediate  fight  on  It,  they  throw 
away  the  irreplaceable  resources  of  Ireland.  They 
pursue  a  mirage  of  Independence,  they  leave  their 
country  open  to  the  worst  imperlahst  of  all. 


I  342  ] 


XIII 
MANUMISSION 

THE    EMPIRE    HAS    FAILED 

IT  is  bitter  for  the  English  to  admit  their  continued 
failure  in  Ireland.  Every  art  and  craft  that  is 
known  to  patient  and  resourceful  administrators  has 
been  utilized  in  dealing  with  the  Irish,  and  time  after 
time,  when  the  administrators  have  attempted  to  rely 
on  it,  the  structure  has  crumbled  under  their  hands. 
Men  from  Oxford  and  Cambridge  have  been  given 
preference  in  the  constabulary,  men  who  have  suc- 
ceeded in  India  have  been  imported  to  the  Castle, 
the  best  kind  of  government  servants  have  been  made 
resident  magistrates  and  commissioners  and  judges 
and  yet  the  integrity  and  squareness  and  reticent  dig- 
nity which  have  worked  so  well  elsewhere  have  no 
principle  of  life  in  them  for  the  Irish  people.  The 
English  government  has  tried  everything.  Some- 
times it  has  adopted  the  most  enlightened  methods, 
sometimes  the  most  disgraceful.  If  bribery  and  cor- 
ruption could  advance  Pitt's  programme  they  were 
extravagantly  employed.  If  compliance  with  the 
Catholic  church  seemed  to  promise  a  control  over  the 
people  the  Catholic  church  was  sought  in  consulta- 
tion. If  the  suppression  of  group  action  or  the  dis- 
carding of  trial  by  jury  or  the  simple  expedient  of 
deportation  appeared  to  favor  English  purposes,  the 
English    government    readily    stooped    to    conquer. 

[  343  ] 


There  is  nothing  of  Cossack  severity,  at  one  extreme, 
or  of  absurd  yielding  to  strong  local  sentiment,  at  the 
other,  that  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  last  century  of 
governmental  record  —  the  last  four  years,  for  that 
matter  —  and  yet  the  outcome  of  all  this  pliancy  and 
subtlety,  accompanied  by  measures  of  legislation 
often  wholly  admirable,  has  been  a  continuous  and 
even  fatuous  failure.  The  settlement  of  land  tenure, 
local  self-government,  the  national  university  and  the 
popular  department  of  agriculture  do  lift  themselves 
above  fatuity  and  offer  a  solid  footing  for  mutual 
satisfaction.  The  rest  is  a  moral  quagmire.  It  has 
given  England  a  notoriety  throughout  the  world. 
The  Germans  try  to  lisp  in  Gaelic,  for  the  edification 
of  the  disaffected  Dubllner.  Trotzky  meets  the 
good  offices  of  Englishmen  with  a  satiric  inquiry, 
"How  about  Ireland?"  The  nationalistic  Hindu 
does  not  forget  It.  Neither  do  thousands  of  de- 
tached observers  who  are  no  allies  of  Hindu  or 
Russian  or  German.  Whatever  may  be  said  to  ex- 
tenuate the  failure  or  to  fix  the  blame  for  it,  the  one 
thing  undeniable  is  the  moral  insolvency  of  the  em- 
pire in  Ireland.  "  No,  my  Lords,"  as  the  Marquess 
of  Crewe  told  the  upper  house  In  1913,  "  Ireland  — 
by  whose  fault  does  not  matter  —  has  never  become 
an  integral  part  of  Britain;  her  government  has  In 
essence  remained  a  colonial  government." 

This  insolvency  has  been  exposed  to  the  world 
during  the  world  war.  In  a  struggle  affecting  the 
destiny  of  hundreds  of  millions  it  has  obtruded  itself 
continually.  Because  its  importance  is  a  moral  one 
it  has  asserted  itself  even  in  the  hour  of  Armenian 
massacre  and  Polish  famine.  And  that  importance 
could   not   be    disguised   by   propagandists.     When 

[  344  ] 


conscription  took  up  the  people  of  Britain  as  a  Hon 
would  lift  its  whelps  by  its  teeth,  not  to  maul  them 
but  to  make  them,  it  morally  could  not  afford  to 
touch  the  people  of  Ulster  or  the  people  of  the  south 
of  Ireland.  Union  could  not  stand  that  elemental 
test.  It  is  not  that  Irishmen  would  not  be  soldiers. 
Irishmen  before  had  fought  for  the  empire.  At  the 
very  moment  when  hunger  was  stalking  the  poor 
peasantry  of  Ireland  in  1844,  the  Delanys  and  the 
Kellys  were  at  Meanee  and  Dubba  with  Sir  Charles 
Napier,  "  magnificent  Tipperary  .  .  .  Irishmen, 
strong  in  body,  high-blooded,  fierce,  impetuous  sol- 
diers who  saw  nothing  but  victory  before  them,  and 
counted  not  their  enemies."  Reluctance  to  shoulder 
arms  did  not  hold  the  Irish  people  back  from  the 
world  war.  Over  90,000  Catholics  did  enlist  in  the 
beginning,  and  the  Nationalist  party  did  its  best  to 
prove  that  the  people  were  "  good  Europeans." 
But  there  was  a  reason  for  the  weakness  of  Irish 
response.  It  was  the  absence  of  union,  the  dearth 
of  heart,  between  the  rulers  and  the  ruled.  And 
Ireland  did  not  look  on  the  army  of  the  empire  as  a 
force  required  for  security  to  Itself,  thereby  accept- 
ing conscription  as  a  necessary  evil.  On  whatever 
occasion  the  red  coat  had  been  seen  in  Ireland  in  the 
past,  it  was  to  protect  a  landlord  or  an  employer  or 
a  clergyman  collecting  tithes,  or  else  to  shoot  down 
mobs  or  destroy  rebels.  The  invasion  of  Ireland 
was  not  sufl'iclently  probable  to  frighten  the  Irlsh^  and 
Germany  was  clever  enough  to  understand  this. 
The  one  thing  that  might  have  prepared  Ireland  for 
the  war  was  true  membership  in  an  Imperial  society. 
But  until  that  membership  was  honorable  and  volun- 
tary, nationalist  Ireland  looked  on  England  as  Schles- 
[  345  ] 


wig  looks  on  her  empire,  or  Bohemia  on  her  empire, 
and  the  tallc  of  empire,  ("  one  throne,  one  flag,  one 
citizenship  ")  generally  made  it  sick. 

THE    NATURE   OF    FAILURE 

When  Lord  Milner  says  "  one  throne,  one  flag, 
one  citizenship,"  it  represents  to  him  "  communis 
patria,"  "  all-round  loyalty,  the  loyalty  of  each  to  all, 
of  every  member  to  the  whole  body."  When  an 
Irish  nationalist  hears  the  phrase  it  still  means  the 
shooting  of  stone-throwers,  the  hauteur  of  English 
government  inspectors,  the  inequality  and  privilege 
of  Dublin  Castle,  the  ascendancy,  the  garrison.  It 
means  Mr.  Austen  Chamberlain  preaching  the  gos- 
pel of  Ireland  industrially  impotent  ("communis 
patria").  It  means  Mr.  Arthur  Balfour  sneering 
at  Gaelic  and  the  *'  bitter  fiction  "  of  Irish  national- 
ity ("communis  patria").  It  means  Earl  Percy 
and  Lord  Ellenborough  talking  foolishly  of  Ireland 
as  Britain's  military  bondservant.  It  means  giving 
up  the  group  struggle  against  colonizers  and  im- 
perialists. That  is  the  native  principle  at  odds  with 
the  principle  of  "  loyalty."  "  Ireland  has  never  be- 
come an  integral  part  of  the  United  Kingdom,"  to 
quote  Lord  Crewe  again,  "  because  the  principle  of 
Irish  nationality  has  altogether  refused  to  die." 

How  to  deal  with  that  principle  has  haunted  the 
best  British  statesmen.  From  1885  to  1893  i*  was 
the  preoccupation  of  England.  When  the  Irish 
people  gave  up  Parnell  at  Gladstone's  behest,  the 
English  Liberals  did  not  disguise  the  immediate  po- 
litical debt  that  they  had  contracted  with  Ireland,  and 
home  rule  became  the  formal  token  of  direct  moral 
satisfaction.  But  home  rule  is  a  vague  phrase, 
[  346] 


After  the  land  legislation  it  seemed  quite  fair  to 
many  good  Liberals  to  shelve  Ireland.  They 
thought  they  could  escape  the  necessity  of  dealing 
directly  with  the  Irish  question.  The  very  fact  that 
the  demand  was  largely  a  moral  demand  made  its 
pressure  diffuse  and  impalpable.  To  deny  it,  even, 
was  a  pleasant  temptation.  Mr.  Asquith  and  his 
colleagues  shambled  very  reluctantly  to  fight  this  af- 
fair of  honor. 

What  the  tepid  Liberals  hoped  for,  in  the  main, 
was  a  home  rule  settlement  by  default.  It  was  all 
very  well  for  the  Unionists  to  contend  in  19 12  that 
Ireland  had  become  insolvent  "  due  to  Lloyd  Geor- 
gian finance,"  but  Lloyd  Georgian  finance  was  a 
move  in  the  direction  of  state  socialism,  and  in  that 
direction  lay  a  municipal  escape  from  home  rule. 
The  final  riddance  of  home  rule  would  be  self-gov- 
ernment all-round.  If  a  scheme  could  be  framed  to 
give  popular  councils  to  Ulster  and  Scotland  and 
Wales  and  nationalist  Ireland,  the  invidious  nation- 
alism of  Ireland  could  be  avoided,  and  separatism  de- 
prived of  its  handle  on  Irish  opinion.  British  Liber- 
als, in  point  of  fact,  always  had  John  Redmond  in  a 
dilemma  as  to  separatism.  If  he  said  he  was  dis- 
loyal to  the  empire,  he  could  not  have  their  solemn 
constitutional  assistance.  If  he  said  he  was  loyal 
to  the  empire,  his  nationalism  could  be  quite  fairly 
subordinated.  This  kind  of  logomachy  kept  British 
parliamentarians  happy,  the  horizon  always  shim- 
mering with  the  hope  that  a  "  moral  "  question  is  a 
fanciful  question,  that  Irish  prosperity  would  lap 
away  Irish  contentiousness,  that  the  coils  of  discus- 
sion would  chill  the  fervors  of  particularism. 

[  347  ] 


UNDYING    NATIONALITY 

But  it  is  not  politic,  even  in  a  question  of  "  more 
and  less,"  to  take  too  many  advantages.  Like  every 
other  living  political  desire,  the  desire  of  Irish  nation- 
alism is  not  a  fixed  quantity  or  quality.  It  varies 
from  year  to  year,  from  group  to  group,  from  per- 
sonality to  personality.  But  the  fact  that  it  varies, 
that  It  is  compatible  with  more  than  one  constitution 
or  constitutional  arrangement,  was  no  guarantee  that 
it  could  be  held  on  the  politician's  doorstep  forever. 
Its  very  flexibility  was  an  assurance  that  the  longer 
it  was  edged  away  and  discomfited  the  more  exigent 
it  would  become.  The  reality  of  Ireland  to  Irish- 
men could  not  be  treated  as  a  theory.  It  sprang  into 
full  being  with  every  Irish  boy's  and  Irish  girl's  un- 
tutored initiation  into  national  history  and  it  renewed 
Itself  with  every  dubious  phase  of  government. 
"  We  are  told  again  and  again,"  said  Lord  Crewe, 
"  that  in  reality  there  is  no  Irish  nation.  .  .  .  This 
fact  of  the  undying  nationality  of  Ireland  is  the  first 
that  emerges  from  any  wide  study  of  history." 
What  its  terms  with  the  empire  would  have  to  be  was 
a  special  question.  To  evade  the  question  alto- 
gether was  to  drive  Irishmen  and  Irishwomen  to 
intransigence. 

Take,  for  example,  that  cheap  taunt  of  Mr.  Bal- 
four's, "  the  bitter  fiction  that  Ireland  was  once  a 
'  nation  '  whose  national  life  has  been  destroyed  by 
Its  more  powerful  neighbor."  Against  it  the  Irish 
youth  sets  everything  he  knows  of  England's  attempt 
to  sponsor  this  deft  politician's  "  vital  He."  Under 
the  system  of  education  bestowed  on  Ireland  In  this 
spirit  the  child's  "  history  book  mentioned  Ireland 
[  348  ] 


twice  only  —  a  place  conquered  by  Henry  II;  and 
made  into  an  English  province  by  the  union.  The 
quotation  '  This  is  my  own,  my  native  land,'  was 
struck  out  of  the  reading-book  as  pernicious,  and  the 
Irish  boy  was  taught  to  thank  God  for  being  '  a 
happy  English  child.'  "  Mrs.  John  R.  Green,  from 
whom  I  quote,  recalls  for  young  Ireland  what  "  un- 
dying nationality  "  really  consists  of,  despite  the  sup- 
pressions of  school  books.  "  Amid  contempt,  perse- 
cution, proscription,  death,  the  outcast  Irish  cherished 
their  language  and  poetry,  their  history  and  lav/, 
with  the  old  pride  and  devotion.  In  that  supreme 
and  unselfish  loyalty  to  their  race  they  found  dignity 
in  humiliation  and  patience  in  disaster,  and  have  left, 
out  of  the  depths  of  their  poverty  and  sorrow,  one 
of  the  noblest  examples  of  history."  So  much  for 
the  tradition.  The  destruction  sneered  at  by  Mr. 
Balfour  is  not  unchronicled.  "  We  may  ask 
whether  in  the  history  of  the  world  there  was  cast 
out  of  any  country  such  genius,  learning,  and  indus- 
try, as  the  English  flung,  as  it  were,  into  the  sea.  .  .  . 
Every  vestige  of  their  tradition  was  doomed  —  their 
religion  was  forbidden,  and  the  staff  of  Patrick  and 
Cross  of  Columcille  destroyed,  with  every  other  na- 
tional relic;  their  schools  were  scattered,  their 
learned  men  hunted  down,  their  books  burned;  na- 
tive industries  were  abolished;  the  inauguration 
chairs  of  their  chiefs  were  broken  in  pieces,  and  the 
law  of  the  race  torn  up,  codes  of  inheritance,  of  land 
tenure,  of  contract  between  neighbors  or  between 
lord  and  man.  The  very  image  of  Justice  which  the 
race  had  fashioned  for  itself  was  shattered.  Love 
of  country  and  every  attachment  of  race  and  history 
became  a  crime,  and  even  Irish  language  and  dress 

[  349  ] 


were  forbidden  under  penalty  of  outlawry  or  excom- 
munication. '  No  more  shall  any  laugh  there,' 
wrote  the  poet,  '  or  children  gambol;  music  is  choked, 
the  Irish  language  chained.'  "  It  is  dangerous,  in 
the  hour  of  Belgium,  to  deny  that  such  things  can 
happen  or  have  happened.  What  is  the  anthology 
of  native  Irish  poetry?  Long  before  the  historians 
discovered  "  nationality  "  for  political  purposes  the 
heart  of  Irish  poetry  flamed  and  smouldered  with 
one  consuming  love,  the  love  of  Ireland.  That  love 
enwrapped  and  consoled  the  people  of  Ireland  and 
today  it  is  merely  necessary  for  England  to  smite  the 
love  of  Ireland  to  flash  loyalty  to  the  powder-mine 
of  an  oppressed  race's  memory.  If  this  be  "  bitter 
fiction  "  to  Mr.  Balfour,  it  is  the  kind  of  bitter  fiction 
for  which  men  have  come  to  die  in  France. 

Nationality  is  not  of  itself  incompatible  with  em- 
pire. A  nation  no  more  sympathetic  than  Bavaria 
is  to  Prussia  could  become  a  strong  component  of  the 
German  empire.  It  is  possible  for  the  sharpest  par- 
ticularism to  defer  so  long  as  public  safety  quite 
clearly  demands  it,  and  economic  welfare  is  not  for- 
feit, and  religious  and  national  character  are  not  de- 
nied. But  the  great  principle  of  organizing  peoples 
into  commonwealths  is  never  to  be  advanced  as  long 
as  union  is  promoted  by  persons  with  a  relentless 
vested  interest.  The  principle  of  imperial  or  federal 
sentiment  may  be  irrefutable  but  it  is  mere  perfume 
on  a  cancer  if  the  synonym  of  the  imperialists  is 
privilege. 

This  is  the  root  of  raw  Irish  discontent  with  the 
empire  and  it  is  the  root  of  the  failure  of  good  ad- 
ministration. In  dealing  with  Jamaican  Negroes  it 
is  perfectly  feasible  to  let  the  children  gamble  with 
[  350  ] 


paper  money  and  dress  the  part  of  citizenship. 
Jamaica  is  one  of  the  triumphs  of  English  administra- 
tion, including  a  fully  equipped  toy  legislature.  But 
when  men  have  an  oppressive  national  responsibility 
like  the  Irish,  and  suffer  with  the  neglect  of  the  re- 
sponsibility, the  point  comes  where  they  must  demand 
and  insist  upon  the  power  which  that  responsibility 
implies.  It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  any  European 
race  (or  any  human  race,  I  dare  say)  to  do  other- 
wise. And  to  take  that  power  on  sufferance,  to  take 
it  while  guaranteeing  that  it  shall  be  used  in  some  par- 
ticular fashion,  is  not  conceivable.  It  is  not  conceiv- 
able to  say  in  advance,  for  example,  what  Ireland 
shall  or  shall  not  do  in  the  future.  As  Parnell  sensi- 
bly said,  "  We  have  never  attempted  to  fix  the  ne 
plus  ultra  of  Ireland's  nationhood  and  we  never 
shall  ";  and  as  he  said  again,  "  no  man  shall  set  a 
boundary  on  the  onward  march  of  a  nation." 

ABSOLUTE    INDEPENDENCE 

Those  who  understand  nationality  are  not  like  to 
combat  such  assertions.  The  cry  of  "  separatism," 
for  example,  has  never  dismayed  the  stronger  intelli- 
gences in  England.  Opponents  of  home  rule  like 
Professor  A.  V.  Dicey  have  taken  honorable  pains  to 
do  justice  to  the  separatists'  case  for  absolute  inde- 
pendence. "  The  position  they  occupy,"  he  once 
said,  "  is  one  of  which  no  man  has  any  cause  to  feel 
ashamed.  The  opinion  that,  considering  the  misery 
which  has  marked  the  connection  between  England 
and  Ireland,  the  happiest  thing  for  the  weaker  coun- 
try would  be  complete  separation  from  the  United 
Kingdom,  is  one  which  in  common  with  most  Eng- 
lishmen, and,  it  may  be  added,  in  common  with  the 

[  351  ] 


wisest  foreign  observers,  I  do  not  share;  but  fairness 
requires  the  admission  that  it  is  an  opinion  which  a 
man  may  hold  and  may  act  upon,  without  incurring 
the  charge  either  of  folly  or  of  wickedness."  Mark 
the  words,  "  act  upon."  If  he  is  caught,  as  Roger 
Casement  was  caught,  he  may  be  put  in  the  tower 
instead  of  the  cabinet,  and  he  may  be  executed,  but 
it  will  not  be  fair  to  charge  him  with  folly  or  wicked- 
ness, or  to  demean  the  British  empire,  as  official 
propagandists  like  Mr.  Alfred  Noyes  and  Captain 
Ian  Hay  Beith  demeaned  it  in  their  partisanship,  by 
circulating  irrelevant  sexual  rumors  after  the  man 
was  dead  —  continuing  the  loathsome  work  that  be- 
gan while  he  was  still  on  trial.  Many  nations  have 
separated  without  unwholesome  perpetuation  of  ran- 
cor, as  for  instance  Norway  and  Sweden,  Belgium 
and  Holland,  England  and  the  United  States.  Sep- 
aratism may  lead  to  disintegration  or  it  may  lead  to 
growth.  There  is  no  principle  of  union  to  cover 
every  case. 

The  absolute  independence  of  Ireland  is  undoubt- 
edly open  to  several  objections.  Mr.  Dicey  has  ad- 
mirably summarized  the  English  objections.  "  The 
national  independence  of  Ireland  entails  three  great 
evils  —  the  deliberate  surrender  of  the  main  object 
at  which  English  statesmanship  has  aimed  for  cen- 
turies, together  with  all  the  moral  loss  and  disgrace 
which  such  surrender  entails;  the  loss  of  considerable 
material  resources  in  money,  and  still  more  in  men; 
the  incalculable  evil  of  the  existence  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Great  Britain  of  a  new,  a  foreign,  and,  pos- 
sibly, a  hostile  state.  For  these  evils  there  are,  in- 
deed, to  be  found  two  real  though  inadequate  com- 
pensations —  namely,    the   probability   that   loss   of 

[  352  ] 


territory  might  restore  to  England  a  unity  and  con- 
sistency of  action  equivalent  to  an  increase  in 
strength,  and  the  possibility  that  separation  might  be 
the  first  step  towards  gaining  the  good  will,  and  ulti- 
mately the  alliance  of  Ireland.  It  is,  however, 
hardly  worth  while  to  calculate  what  might  be  the 
extent  of  the  possible  deductions  from  evils  which 
no  English  statesmen  would  knowingly  bring  on 
Great  Britain.  By  men  of  all  parties  and  of  all 
views  it  is  practically  conceded  that  England  neither 
will  nor  can,  except  under  compulsion,  assent  to  Irish 
Independence." 

It  has  been  a  signal  defect  In  English  policy,  I 
think,  not  to  envisage  Irish  Independence  and  to  ob- 
serve Its  advantages.  England  has  needed  a  states- 
man who  could  so  conceive  Irishmen  as  to  respect 
their  wishes  and  enter  Into  a  broad  and  sincere  discus- 
sion of  their  extremest  expression.  It  has  needed  a 
statesman  who  could  think  of  Irishmen  as  the  United 
States  has  thought  of  Filipinos.  But  before  an 
English  statesman  could  do  this  he  had  first  to  settle 
his  scores  with  Anglo-Ireland,  and  that  no  English 
statesman  has  been  quite  able  to  do.  The  garrison 
has  a  claim  on  Ireland  which  It  has  declined  to  remit. 
It  has  a  vested  Interest  In  the  union,  selfishly  and  nar- 
rowly insisted  upon,  and  the  highest  flight  of  Its 
patriotism  to  England  or  Ireland  has  never,  since 
the  Infamy  of  the  union,  risen  above  timorous  devolu- 
tion or  weak  federalism.  The  "  desertion  "  of  the 
garrison  Is,  beyond  doubt,  the  clue  to  England's 
undertaking  an  alliance  with  Ireland.  And  so  long 
as  England  sets  the  garrison  above  Ireland,  the  rela- 
tion with  Ireland  Is  seriously  perverted. 

This,  as  I  see  It,  is  at  the  core  of  England's  ad- 
[  353  ] 


ministratlve  difficulty  in  Ireland.  If  England  had 
been  able  to  administer  Ireland  for  Ireland's  good, 
the  Irish  might  now  be  coordinated;  or  if  England 
had  been  able  to  show  Ireland  its  better  self,  as  it 
has  shown  Scotland  its  better  self,  the  acquiescence  in 
union  might  be  cordial.  But  the  toll  demanded  by 
Anglo-Ireland  has  always  been  so  heavy,  in  patron- 
age if  not  always  in  profit,  that  the  native  Irish  could 
see  little  that  is  admirable  or  desirable  in  the  empire. 
The  "  moral  loss  and  disgrace  "  of  which  Mr.  Dicey 
speaks  has  been  entailed  much  more  by  holding  Ire- 
land for  the  parasites  than  it  could  have  been  by  any 
deliberate  surrender.  It  has  been  entailed  by  losing 
4,000,000  discontented  citizens  through  emigration 
in  sixty  years.  This  is  the  fact  that  men  who  are 
inured  to  an  established  church  and  landlordism  and 
an  aristocratic  diplomacy  and  a  wigged  judiciary  do 
not  easily  see.  The  "  dunghill  civilization  "  of  Ire- 
land seldom  appears  to  them  to  have  real  possibili- 
ties outside  its  colonial  possibilities.  Their  imagina- 
tions cannot  seize  on  these  Britannic  incongruities  In 
Ireland  which  are  apparent  to  an  Irishman.  What 
is  a  benign  excrescence  in  England,  after  all,  may  be 
an  intolerable  disorder  to  Ireland.  This  Is  where 
high  conservatives  like  Mr.  Dicey  lack  that  Intimate 
knowledge  of  "  dunghill  civilization  "  which  would 
so  improve  a  human  judgment. 

THE    ULSTER   DIFFICULTY 

Absolute  independence  is  open  to  several  serious 
objections  from  Irishmen  themselves.  The  princi- 
pal of  these  objections  arises  from  the  unionist  Inter- 
est in  Ireland. 

A  very  strong  force  binds  Ulster  to  Great  Britain. 
[  354] 


It  is,  as  has  been  amplified,  Belfast's  industrialism. 
Seen  from  Belfast  the  union  has  been  a  reasonably 
successful  union,  in  spite  of  educational  and  cultural 
deficiencies  in  Ulster.  The  homogeneity  of  the  two 
Protestant  nations,  Britain  and  Ulster,  has  been  ac- 
centuated by  the  sameness  of  industrial  and  commer- 
cial interests.  Belfast  has  adopted  machine  technol- 
ogy and  understood  Britain's  adoption  of  machine 
technology,  and  the  success  of  Belfast  has  created  a 
special  mental  and  emotional  norm  in  the  north. 
That  norm  is  felt  by  some  Ulstermen  to  be  identical 
with  England's.  Ulster,  said  Mr.  Thomas  Sinclair 
in  19 1 2,  "  wishes  to  continue  as  an  Irish  Lancashire^ 
or  an  Irish  Lanarkshire."  But  identical  or  not,  the 
separation  from  England  is  not  desired.  Not  only 
does  Mr,  Sinclair  feel  certain  that  separation  would 
"  degrade  the  status  of  Ulster  citizenship  by  impair- 
ing its  relationship  to  imperial  parliament "  and 
would  "  seriously  injure  Ulster's  material  prosperity 
—  industrial,  commercial,  agricultural,"  but  he  is 
equally  convinced  that  an  all-Ireland  parliament 
would  "  gravely  imperii  Ulster's  civil  and  religious 
liberties  "  and  would  "  involve  the  entire  denomina- 
tionalizing,  in  the  interests  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
church,  of  Irish  education  in  all  its  branches."  The 
Ulster  opposition  to  home  rule  is  therefore  more 
than  economic.  "  It  is,"  as  Lord  Londonderry  put 
it,  "  an  uprising  of  a  people  against  tyranny  and  co- 
ercion; against  condemnation  to  servitude;  against 
deprivation  of  the  right  of  citizens  to  an  effective 
voice  in  the  government  of  the  country." 

And  a  positive  Ulster  sentiment  In  favor  of  the 
union  must  be  included  In  this  testimonial  of  opposi- 
tion.    "  The  union,"  says  Lord  Londonderry,  "  has 

[  355  ] 


been  no  obstacle  to  their  [Ulstermen's]  develop- 
ment: Why  should  it  have  been  the  barrier  to  the 
rest  of  Ireland?  Ulstermen  believe  that  the  union 
with  Great  Britain  has  assisted  the  development  of 
their  commerce  and  industry.  They  are  proud  of 
the  progress  of  Belfast  and  of  her  position  in  the 
industrial  and  shipping  world.  Without  great  natu- 
ral advantages  it  has  been  built  up  by  energy,  appli- 
cation, clearheadedness  and  hard  work.  The  oppo- 
sition to  home  rule  is  the  revolt  of  a  business  and 
industrial  community  against  the  domination  of  men 
who  have  shown  no  aptitude  for  either.  The  United 
Irish  League,  the  official  organization  of  the  home 
rule  party,  is,  as  a  treasurer  once  confessed,  remark- 
ably lacking  in  the  support  of  business  men,  mer- 
chants, manufacturers,  leaders  of  industry,  bankers, 
and  men  who  compose  a  successful  and  progressive 
community.  In  the  management  of  their  party 
funds,  their  impending  bankruptcy  but  a  few  years 
ago,  the  mad  scheme  of  New  Tipperary,  and  the 
fiasco  of  the  Parnell  Migration  Company  there  is  the 
same  monotonous  story  of  failure.  Can  surprise  be 
felt  that  Ulstermen  refuse  to  place  the  control  of 
national  affairs  in  the  hands  of  those  who  have  shown 
little  capacity  in  the  direction  of  their  own  personal 
concerns?  What  responsible  statesman  would  sug- 
gest that  the  City  of  London,  Liverpool,  Manchester, 
Sheffield,  Newcastle,  or  any  advancing  industrial  and 
commercial  centre  in  Great  Britain  should  be  ruled 
and  governed  and  taxed,  without  the  hope  of  effective 
intervention,  by  a  party  led  by  Mr.  Keir  Hardie  and 
Mr.  Lansbury?  Yet  home  rule  means  much  like 
that  for  Ulstermen,  and  the  impossibility  of  the 
scheme  is  emphasized  in  the  example  of  Ireland  by 

[  356  ] 


religious  differences  which  have  their  roots  in  Irish 
history." 

I  have  quoted  this  long  passage  to  illustrate  the 
exact  idiom  of  the  impasse  between  Ulster  and  the 
south.  On  one  side  success,  progress,  energy,  clear 
heads,  hard  work;  on  the  other  side  failure,  impend- 
ing bankruptcy,  mad  schemes,  the  British  Labor 
Party,  small  capacity.  Lord  Londonderry  pro- 
claims it  from  the  housetops.  He  leaves  no  doubt 
that  he  means  what  he  says. 

The  impasse  here  is  largely  psychological,  and 
Ulster's  psychological  state  is  not  unlike  the  Prussian 
psychological  state.  There  is  the  arrogance  of  Prus- 
sia, "  refusing  "  to  place  the  control  of  government 
when  the  placing  of  control  was  obviously  not  in  its 
province.  There  is  the  self-conceit  of  Prussia,  "  I 
alone  possess  energy,  application,  clearheadedness 
and  hard  work."  There  is  Prussia's  cry  of  tyranny 
and  coercion,  when  the  record  of  Ulster  is  by  no 
means  free  from  these  amiabilities,  coming  from  the 
plantation  down  to  the  necessity  for  governmental 
suppression  of  Orange  lodges  in  1836,  with  little 
touches  of  vaudeville  before  and  after.  ("  In 
1S69,"  Canon  Courtenay  Moore  recalls,  "Queen 
Victoria's  Crown  was  to  be  kicked  into  the  Boyne 
if  she  gave  her  Royal  assent  to  Mr,  Gladstone's 
church  act.  Well,  she  gave  it,  and  the  Crown  re- 
mained on  her  head.")  The  truculence  of  Ulster 
has  its  admirable  side,  as  the  truculence  of  Prussia 
has  its  admirable  side,  but  Ulster  has  taken  a  posi- 
tion in  the  national  sphere  psychologically  corre- 
sponding to  Prussia's  in  the  international. 

A  "  quiet  bystander  "  must  be  invoked  to  describe 
the  background  of  this  Ulster  soul.  Unless  it  is 
[  357  ] 


taken  in  terms  of  soul  as  well  as  politics,  the  dead- 
lock becomes  mercilessly  fast. 

"  Business  is  civilization,  think  many  of  us;  It 
creates  and  implies  it.  The  general  diffusion  of  ma- 
terial well-being  is  civilization,  thought  Mr.  Cobden, 
as  that  eminent  man's  biographer  has  just  informed 
us;  it  creates  and  implies  it.  Not  always.  And  for 
fear  we  should  forget  what  business  and  what  ma- 
terial well-being  have  to  create,  before  they  do  really 
imply  civilization,  let  us,  at  the  risk  of  being  thought 
tiresome,  repeat  here  what  we  have  said  often  of 
old.  Business  and  material  well-being  are  signs  of 
expansion  and  parts  of  it;  but  civilization,  that  great 
and  complex  force,  includes  much  more  than  ever  that 
power  of  expansion  of  which  they  are  parts.  It  in- 
cludes also  the  power  of  conduct,  the  power  of  intel- 
lect and  knowledge,  the  power  of  beauty,  the  power 
of  social  life  and  manners.  To  the  building  up  of 
human  life  all  these  powers  belong.  If  business  is 
civilization,  then  business  must  manage  to  evolve  all 
these  powers;  if  a  widely  spread  material  well-being 
is  civilization,  then  that  well-being  must  manage  to 
evolve  all  of  them.  It  is  written:  Man  doth  not 
live  by  bread  alone." 

It  may  be  said  that  Matthew  Arnold  was  writing 
of  Puritan  England.  Yes.  "  But  the  genuine,  un- 
mitigated Murdstone  is  the  common  middle-class 
Englishman,  who  has  come  forth  from  Salem  House 
and  Mr.  Creakle.  He  is  seen  in  full  force,  of  course, 
in  the  Protestant  north;  but  throughout  Ireland  he  is 
a  prominent  figure  of  the  English  garrison.  Him 
the  Irish  see,  see  him  only  too  much  and  too  often. 
.  .  .  The  thing  has  no  power  of  attraction.  The 
Irish  quick-wittedness,   sentiment,   keen   feeling  for 

[  358  ] 


social  life  and  manners,  demand  something  which  this 
hard  and  imperfect  civilization  cannot  give  them. 
Its  social  form  seems  to  them  unpleasant,  its  energy 
and  industry  lead  to  no  happiness,  its  religion  to  be 
false  and  repulsive." 

Matthew  Arnold  did  not  include  in  these  strictures 
his  sense  of  Ireland's  "  wrong-headed  distrust  of 
England."  He  stated  that  elsewhere.  But  much 
more  clearly  and  more  sweetly  and  more  sensitively 
than  most  of  us  could  express  it,  he  has  framed  the 
notion  of  those  ideals  by  which  Lord  Londonderry 
seeks  to  guide  the  destinies  of  Ireland. 

What  has  Belfast  instead  of  culture,  to  fill  its  soul? 
So  fair  an  observer  as  Mr.  Norman  Hapgood,  visit- 
ing Belfast  in  May,  19 17,  may  be  quoted  to  exhibit 
the  place  that  denominationalism  has  in  the  cultural 
realm  of  Belfast. 

"  Actually  I  felt  as  if  I  were  living  in  the  time  of 
Cromwell.  Every  Sunday  there  are  in  the  Protest- 
ant churches  sermons  urging  the  faithful  to  hold  out 
against  the  menace  of  home  rule.  I  took  a  large 
part  of  my  meals  in  private  houses,  and  not  once  was 
there  a  meal  which  was  not  preceded  by  grace.  I 
went  to  a  lunch  in  a  private  room  in  a  restaurant,  at 
which  the  other  guests  were  some  of  the  most  active 
business  men  in  the  town,  and  there  likewise  grace 
was  said.     Everywhere  one  heard  the  word  Popery. 

"  There  was  the  energy  also  of  the  Roundhead,  as 
well  as  his  earnest  affiliation  with  his  own  Church  and 
his  unconquerable  fear  of  the  Pope.  I  have  been  in 
many  parts  of  the  world  which  had  a  mediaeval  at- 
mosphere about  them,  but  not  in  the  most  picturesque 
hamlet,  apart  from  all  modern  influences,  have  I  ever 
felt  the  hand  of  the  past  more  powerfully  than  in 
[  359  ] 


the  rushing  Industrial  centre  called  Belfast.  When 
one  considers  the  wonderful  record  of  this  city,  build- 
ing up  great  industries  and  great  prosperity  without 
coal,  iron,  or  other  natural  resources,  it  becomes  still 
more  startling  to  find  one's  self  at  every  turn  carried 
back  to  the  almost  forgotten  fears  and  suspicions  of 
the  past." 

This  seems  to  me  to  corroborate  Matthew  Arnold 
pretty  completely.  And  it  has  the  fibre  of  Prussia 
in  it. 

THE    DOG   IN   THE    MANGER 

Conscientious  outsiders  may  agree  that  Arnold's 
is  a  most  telling  analysis  of  elderly  Ulster's  opaque- 
ness and  hardness,  but  they  can  rightly  assert  that 
such  hardness  remains  inherent  and  formidable.  It 
creates  an  iron  obstacle  to  absolute  independence. 
Even  if  Britain  disregarded  the  warning  of  Admiral 
Mahan,  even  if  it  gave  Ireland  full  sovereignty  with 
its  eyes  opened  to  the  military  danger  of  full  sover- 
eignty, the  great  obduracy  of  Ulster  would  stand  in 
the  way  of  reasonable  success.  It  is  silly  to  be  cate- 
gorical In  these  matters  or  to  argue  docility,  but  I 
cannot  believe  that  full  Irish  sovereignty  would  be 
made  stable  short  of  English  complaisance  and  the 
nationalists  winning  a  fierce  civil  war.  Right  or  not, 
the  Ulsterman  would  resist  the  experiment  and  do  his 
best  to  cripple  It. 

But  home  rule,  backed  by  the  English  people,  is  a 
very  different  matter.  Where  absolute  independence 
would  have  immense  obstacles  to  conquer,  seeing  the 
forces  behind  the  Ulsterman  in  England,  there  is 
every  reason  for  deeming  semi-independence  practica- 
ble and  supposing  that  the  English  people  will  sup^ 

[  360  ] 


port  it.  Not,  however,  until  the  case  of  Ulster  has 
been  definitely  understood  and  disposed  of,  as  it 
never  has  been  understood  and  disposed  of  since  the 
first  debates  of  home  rule. 

The  outsider  is  entitled  to  concentrate  his  atten- 
tion on  Ulster.  He  has  heard  a  great  deal  about 
Ireland's  baulked  disposition,  Ireland's  nationalism, 
Ireland's  self-determination.  If  such  arguments  for 
liberty  have  a  virtue  in  them,  how  can  they  be  ignored 
when  offered  by  the  protesting  minority  of  Ulster? 
Can  that  minority  be  justly  overborne?  The  very 
essence  of  Ulster  opposition  to  home  rule  is  particu- 
larism. If  it  is  wrong  for  agricultural  Ireland  to  be 
placed  under  the  heel  of  a  British  parliament,  is  it 
not  equally  wrong  for  industrial  North-East  Ulster 
to  be  placed  under  the  heel  of  a  Dublin  parliament? 
Is  a  bill  of  Ulster  rights  any  security?  A  written 
guarantee  in  the  act  of  union  did  not  save  the  estab- 
lished church.  Are  not  the  Ulster  leaders  right  to 
scorn  "  paper  safeguards,"  "  artificial  guarantees  "? 
They  absolutely  refuse  to  reason  about  the  union. 
Is  not  this  refusal  warranted? 

I  do  not  think  it  is.  Granting  the  particularity  of 
North-East  Ulster,  it  has  no  conceivable  right  to  in- 
terdict home  rule  for  the  rest  of  Ireland.  Yet  home 
rule  for  any  part  of  Ireland  remains  seriously  handi- 
capped until  Ulster  consents  to  do  its  share.  It  is 
this  that  makes  it  imperative  for  Ulster's  pride  and 
recalcitrance  to  be  judged  in  relation  to  consequences. 
Ulster  is  not  merely  standing  out  for  its  own  prefer- 
ences. It  is  standing  squarely  in  the  path  of  Ireland's 
necessities,  necessities  that  are  clearly  reconcilable 
with  Ulster's  own.  If  Ulster  could  be  "  left  alone," 
as  it  has  repeatedly  asked  to  be  left  alone,  the  intru- 
.    [  361  ] 


slon  of  home  rule  would  be  an  impertinence.  But 
Ulster  Is  not  Lanarkshire  or  Lancashire.  "  This 
conception  of  the  Protestants  In  Ulster  being  a  sort 
of  projection  of  England,  or  of  Scotland,"  as  Lord 
Dunraven  phrased  It,  "  is  not  an  Irish  idea.  It  is  a 
purely  British  Invention.  It  Is  a  sort  of  British 
patent  that  is  brought  out  every  now  and  then  for 
political  purposes."  Ulster  is  part  of  Ireland,  with 
half  Its  population  Catholic  nationalists,  and  Catholic 
nationalists  interlarded  all  through.  This  strlature 
of  Catholics  and  Protestants,  nationalists  and  anti- 
nationalists,  Irish  and  Scotch-Ulstermen,  is  by  no 
means  so  insufferable  as  the  tenor  of  argument  may 
indicate.  "  We  gladly  acknowledge,"  declares  Mr. 
Thomas  Sinclair,  "  that  In  most  parts  of  Ireland 
Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics,  as  regards  the 
ordinary  affairs  of  life,  live  side  by  side  on  friendly 
neighborly  terms."  But  serious  as  it  would  be  to 
strangulate  nationalist  Ulster,  in  an  avowedly  Union- 
ist department,  that  is  not  the  final  objection  to  sec- 
tionalism. The  final  objection  is  the  ruthless  de- 
rangement of  home  rule. 

By  this  I  do  not  mean  that  Ulster  must  be  "  bul- 
lied." I  only  mean  that  the  minority  in  Ireland 
must  do  better  than  act  the  dog  in  the  manger.  For 
a  great  many  years  the  fiercest  opposition  to  Irish 
liberty  came  from  the  landed  Interest.  When  the 
land  laws  went  into  effect  the  landed  Interest  retained 
a  sentimental  objection  to  Irish  liberty,  but  now 
everyone  observes  that,  owing  largely  to  Sir  Horace 
Plunkett,  the  southern  Unionists  are  practically  pre- 
pared to  favor  home  rule.  The  Ulster  opposition 
has  a  different  cultural  aspect  and  a  different 
economic  bias.     If  the  economic  and  cultural  bias 

[  362  ] 


Is  comprehended  and  an  adjustment  made  obvi- 
ous, Ulster  may  be  counted  on  to  yield.  To  every 
revolution,  of  course,  there  is  a  counter-revolution, 
and  there  will  always  be  men  in  Ulster  who  would 
rather  die  than  consent  to  home  rule.  It  is  the 
business  of  statesmanship  to  subtract  as  much 
support  as  possible  from  these  victims  of  prejudice. 
No  gain  can  be  made  in  this  direction,  however,  by 
proposing,  as  the  Irish  convention  proposed,  to  sanc- 
tion undemocratic  prejudice  on  the  part  of  Ulster  In 
the  actual  terms  of  agreement.  The  guarantees  to 
Ulster  property  and  propriety  cannot  take  the  form 
of  loading  the  electoral  dice.  If  Ulster's  position  is 
Invidious  In  any  respect,  it  must  be  arranged  that 
everything  which  affects  that  position  should  be  con- 
ditioned on  Ulster's  consent.  But  checks  and  bal- 
ances cannot  be  applied  to  the  actual  parliamentary 
balloting.  The  Idea  of  conceding  Ulster  twenty 
yards  on  every  electoral  hundred  yards,  for  example. 
Is  compromise  gone  mad.  The  essence  of  Ulster's 
self-determination  Is  consent,  but  there  Is  an  ascer- 
tainable difference  between  consent,  a  reasonable 
function  of  the  mind,  and  self-will,  an  Inordinate 
function.  Ulster's  self-will  cannot  be  permitted  to 
dictate  the  fate  of  Ireland,  any  more  than  Prussia's 
self-will  can  be  permitted  to  dictate  the  fate  of  Eu- 
rope. If  Ulster  refuses  "  consent  "  to  a  new  Irish 
constitution,  on  the  grounds  of  Popery  or  southern 
Ignorance  or  what-not,  then  the  statesman  must  pre- 
pare to  deal  with  the  reasonable  elements  and  isolate 
the  unreasonable.  The  presence  of  a  violently  un- 
reasonable element,  whether  Orange  or  Sinn  Fein, 
cannot  be  allowed  to  destroy  Ireland. 

In  fighting  for  the  union,  I  have  no  doubt  that  the 
[  363  ] 


conservatives  In  Ireland  are  making  a  good  "  prac- 
tical "  decision.  Under  the  union  a  great  deal  of  the 
power  that  is  distributed  by  government  is  secure  in 
conservative  hands.  But  the  creative  forces  of  Ire- 
land are  disregarded  by  such  a  decision.  Power  is 
left  with  those  who  have  never  won  the  confidence 
of  the  people,  who  cannot  worl<.  for  the  welfare  of 
the  people,  who  are  partitioned  off  from  the  people 
by  their  very  preference  for  the  union.  This  is  the 
crux  of  Ulster  vs.  Ireland.  What  home  rule  means 
is  the  removal  of  high  undemocratic  barriers  in  every 
department  of  Irish  government.  It  means  the  in- 
flux of  many  more  Catholics  and  nationalists  into 
public  oflices  that  have  been  withheld  from  the  peo- 
ple, and  it  means  a  new  tone,  probably  a  crude  tone, 
in  Irish  life.  But  the  flood  of  vitality  cannot  prove 
so  pernicious  as  the  Ulstermen  forecast.  All  the 
horrors  that  were  anticipated  on  the  Introduction  of 
local  government  are  now  completely  forgotten. 
They  were  empty  dreams.  The  Ulstermen  are  not 
ogres,  the  Catholics  are  not  malignant.  Where  they 
have  worked  together,  In  the  Gaelic  League  and  the 
department  of  agriculture  and  the  cooperative  move- 
ment and  even  the  national  schools,  the  outcome  has 
been  something  vastly  better  than  the  Ulstermen  ex- 
pected. Bigotry  still  exists  and  must  be  recognized. 
"A  few  years  ago,"  the  ominous  Mr.  Sinclair  nar- 
rates, "  a  Protestant  member  of  a  public  service  was 
transferred  upon  promotion  from  Belfast  to  a 
Roman  Catholic  district.  In  which  his  boys  had  no 
available  school  but  that  of  the  Christian  Brothers, 
and  his  girls  none  but  that  of  the  local  convent.  I 
shall  never  forget  the  expression  of  that  man's  face 
or  the  pathos  in  his  voice  while  he  pressed  me  to  help 
[  364  ] 


him  to  obtain  a  transfer  to  a  Protestant  district,  as 
otherwise  he  feared  his  children  would  be  lost  to  the 
faith  of  their  fathers.  Given  a  parliament  in  Dub- 
lin, the  management  of  education  would  be  so  con- 
ducted as  gradually  to  extinguish  Protestant  minori- 
ties in  the  border  counties  of  Ulster  and  in  other 
provinces  of  Ireland.  It  is  here  that  a  chief  danger 
to  Protestantism  lies."  This  is  the  kind  of  panic  and 
hypothesis  that  alarms  one  for  human  nature  itself. 
Mr.  Sinclair  is  a  sensible  man  but  he  gives  not  one 
atom  of  evidence  that  the  Christian  Brothers  would 
take  so  mean  an  advantage.  There  is  a  great  deal 
of  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Christian  Brothers  on  this 
very  point  of  proselytism.  Yet  Catholics  will  be 
found  with  that  same  unforgettable  expression  and 
that  same  vocal  pathos  until  both  frightened  sects  are 
flung  into  the  bath  of  community. 

If  home  rule  were  to  handicap  Ulstermen  In  their 
economic  or  religious  freedom,  home  rule  would  be 
doomed.  But  Lord  Morley  spoke  soundly  when  he 
said  that  the  whole  weight  and  force  of  American 
influence,  for  one  thing,  would  be  "  inevitably  adverse 
to  anything  like  sectarianism,  oppression,  or  unfair 
play."  The  Irish  nationalists  would  be  fools  and 
the  Catholic  hierarchy  would  be  fools  to  embark  on 
anything  that  faintly  resembled  intolerance.  But  the 
genuine  hope  in  the  situation,  the  one  aerial  element 
above  all  these  squirmiing  doubts  and  fears,  is  not  to 
be  found  in  the  bill  itself.  "  So  far  as  an  act  of 
parliament  can  either  guide  or  enforce  a  principle  so 
subtle  and  delicate  as  the  principle  of  toleration  and 
religious  equality,  Clauses  3  and  4  of  this  bill  have 
clinched  and  clamped  that  principle  beyond  the  power 
of  evasion,"  testified  Lord  Morley.     *'  For  my  own 

[  365  ] 


part,  however,  I  have  faith  In  something  surer  than 
any  clauses  In  a  bill.  It  is  my  conviction  that  faith 
in  religious  tolerance  and  religious  freedom  —  not 
indifference,  not  scepticism,  not  disbelief  —  by  one  of 
those  deep,  silent  transformations  which  do  some- 
thing to  make  history  endurable,  has  worked  Itself 
not  only  into  surface  professions  of  men  and  women 
today,  but  Into  the  manners,  usages,  and  the  whole 
habits  of  men's  minds,  and  nothing  will  persuade  me 
that  this  benignant  atmosphere  Is  not  going  to  diffuse 
Itself  even  In  Ireland." 

THE    BONE    OF    CONTENTION 

So  far  I  have  only  spoken  of  Ulster's  determina- 
tion not  to  have  home  rule.  What  Is  the  home  rule 
that  England  was  afraid  to  give  to  Ireland?  I  hesi- 
tate to  quote  the  bill  that  went  Into  law  In  19 14. 
After  Mr.  Thomas  Sinclair,  Lord  Londonderry,  Sir 
Edward  Carson,  one  might  expect  In  this  bill  a  dan- 
gerous extension  of  power,  a  measure  of  trust  and 
understanding,  a  genuine  magna  charta.  The  Irish 
are  still  being  accused  of  not  appreciating  England. 
"  They  distrust  and  misunderstand  England,"  la- 
mented Professor  H.  S.  Canby  of  Yale  In  May,  1 9 1 8. 
Perhaps  the  American  who  has  read  so  far,  who  has 
attended  to  the  Ulster  protest  and  the  Unionist 
exacerbation,  may  judge  the  sense  of  justice  displayed 
by  the  garrison  when  he  takes  the  actual  terms  of 
the  home  rule  bill  into  account. 

I  record,  first  of  all,  the  limits  set  to  the  authority 
of  the  Irish  parliament.  They  spell  out  subordina- 
tion: 

"  Notwithstanding  the  establishment  of  the  Irish 
parliament  or  anything  contained  in  this  act,  the  su- 

[  366  ] 


preme  power  and  authority  of  the  parliament  of  the 
United  Kingdom  shall  remain  unaffected  and  un- 
diminished over  all  persons,  matters,  and  things  in 
Ireland  and  every  part  thereof." 

This  is  Lord  Londonderry's  idea  of  a  conspiracy 
against  the  constitution.  It  is  the  kind  of  conspiracy 
that  Canada,  Australia,  South  Africa,  New  Zealand 
have  darkly  entered  upon. 

I  next  transcribe  the  guarantees  that  are  given  to 
Ulster,  apart  altogether  from  the  fact  that  the  initial 
senate  is  nominated  by  the  crown,  that  Ireland  has 
nothing  whatever  to  say  to  war  and  peace,  army  or 
navy,  and  various  other  minor  functions  of  govern- 
ment. Here  are  the  guarantees:  "  In  the  exercise 
of  their  power  to  make  laws  under  this  act  the  Irish 
parliament  shall  not  make  a  law  so  as  directly  or  in- 
directly to  establish  or  endow  any  religion,  or  pro- 
hibit or  restrict  the  free  exercise  thereof,  or  give  a 
preference,  privilege,  or  advantage,  or  impose  any 
disability  or  disadvantage,  on  account  of  religious 
belief  or  religious  or  ecclesiastical  status,  or  make  any 
religious  belief  or  religious  ceremony  a  condition  of 
the  validity  of  any  marriage,  or  affect  prejudicially 
the  right  of  any  child  to  attend  a  school  receiving 
public  money  without  attending  the  religious  Instruc- 
tion at  that  school,  or  alter  the  constitution  of  any  re- 
ligious body  except  where  the  alteration  is  approved 
on  behalf  of  the  religious  body  by  the  governing  body 
thereof,  or  divert  from  any  religious  denomination 
the  fabric  of  cathedrals,  churches,"  and  so  on. 

This  Is  the  bill  that  the  nationalists  of  Ireland  pro- 
cured after  thirty  years  of  agitation.  There  was  no 
joint  or  loophole  left  In  it  for  one  whiff  of  effective 
religious  prejudice.     There  was  no  sovereignty  or 

[  367  ] 


pretence  or  shadow  of  sovereignty  in  it.  There  was 
no  power  in  it  that  Westminster  could  not  nullify, 
amend,  alter,  or  grind  to  dust.  In  the  new  Irish  House 
of  Commons  Ulster  was  to  have  59  members  out  of 
164,  giving  the  Unionists  a  solid  third.  In  the  initial 
Senate  Ulster  was  to  have  all  the  guarantee  that 
could  be  conferred  by  the  King's  nominating  it.  The 
control  of  the  police  was  to  remain  with  England  for 
a  term  of  years.  The  appointment  of  judges  was  to 
go  to  the  lord  lieutenant.  All  the  civil  servants 
under  the  old  establishment  were  firmly  protected  in 
their  rights.  The  main  power  was  a  parliamentary 
control  of  the  functions  now  arbitrarily  exercised  by 
Dublin  Castle,  and  the  right  to  vary  taxation  within 
a  certain  tightly  tethered  range.  This  is  the  measure 
which  Lord  Londonderry  called  "  tyranny  and  co- 
ercion," which  470,000  people  signed  a  petition 
against,  which  led  Sir  Edward  Carson  into  treason- 
able conspiracy  and  compelled  Lord  French  to  give 
up  his  empire's  sword.  It  is  only  when  the  genuine 
issue,  absolute  independence,  is  brought  into  contrast 
with  this  handcuffed  parliament  of  Mr.  Asquith  that 
the  falsification  of  Ulsterism  is  exposed.  Men  say 
that  Ulster  is  "  sincere,"  that  the  signers  of  the 
Covenant  are  grim  and  resolute  and  determined.  So 
are  the  Prussians  "  sincere  "  and  grim  and  resolute 
and  determined.  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the 
claim  that  Ulster  is  fighting  for  its  liberty?  The 
claim  has  no  basis  In  fact.  Behind  the  protest  of 
Ulster  hang  the  miserable  self-interest  and  Imperial- 
ism which  Intruded  on  Ireland  at  the  first  coloniza- 
tions of  Ulster,  which  have  kept  watchman's  step 
with  the  native  Irish  since  the  primary  Injustice  to 
them  and  which  have  written  themselves  not  merely 

[  368  ] 


Into  the  opposition  to  home  rule  but  into  every  grudg- 
ing syllable  of  the  bill  itself.  If  the  British  empire 
were  a  mean  and  crafty  bargainer,  warped  with  tak- 
ing advantage  of  the  weak,  crabbed  with  skimming 
profit  from  hardship,  I  do  not  think  it  could  have 
devised  a  more  small-spirited  or  contemptible  mea- 
sure than  this  home  rule  which  it  first  conceded  and 
then  so  warily  and  anxiously  drew  back.  If  Ireland 
takes  such  a  bill,  It  will  only  be  because  It  has  de- 
scended to  the  level  of  the  huckster  and  the  cheese- 
parer.  Home  rule  on  the  terms  of  this  Asquith  and 
Lloyd  George  liberalism  is  home  rule  for  a  penal 
colony.  It  Is  a  mystery  to  nationalism  how  John 
Redmond  could  have  accepted  such  worthless  politi- 
cal odds  and  ends. 

And  yet,  with  all  the  precautions  of  Westminster, 
Sir  Edward  Carson  and  Lord  Londonderry  did  not 
propose  to  relinquish  this  remnant  to  the  Irish.  Dub- 
lin Castle  was  their  high  concern.  The  bill  proposed 
the  disinfection  and  popularization  of  Dublin  Castle. 
This  they  refused.  Unionists  "  refuse  to  place  the 
control  "  of  their  Dublin  Castle  in  the  hands  of  the 
people  of  Ireland.  It  was  the  fear  that  this  single 
function  of  the  home  rule  bill  would  become  operative 
that  startled  the  apprehensions  of  Ulster's  leaders. 
The  ark  of  which  Ulster  signed  the  covenant  was  not 
the  sacred  ark  of  the  old  testament  but  the  scabrous 
ark  of  the  Old  Guard.  The  Insolence  of  Sir  Edward 
Carson  and  Lord  Londonderry  and  the  rest  had 
nothing  better  than  Dublin  Castle  to  justify  It — • 
the  home  of  bureaucracy,  the  labyrinth  of  prejudice. 
The  oppressed  minority  of  Ulster  does  not  remain 
deeply  tragic  in  the  light  of  Sir  Edward  Carson's 
anxieties  for  Dublin  Castle.  So  long  as  Ulster 
[  369  ] 


workmen  and  Ulster  farmers  believe  In  the  devilry 
of  Rome,  "  the  horrible  harlot,  the  kirk  malignant," 
they  can  be  made  available  for  such  purposes  as  Car- 
son's. But  does  he  believe  in  the  devilry  of  Rome? 
Does  he  believe  in  the  "  to  hell  with  the  pope  "  non- 
sense? An  experienced  London  barrister,  trained  in 
the  slippery  ingenuities  and  sophistications  of  the 
London  bar,  Sir  Edward  Carson  knows  just  exactly 
how  much  and  how  little  the  Pope  has  to  do  with 
Irish  politics.  But  know-nothingism,  Rum-Roman- 
ism-and-Rebelllon,  remain  convenient  war-cries  so 
long  as  Ulster  workmen  look  askance  at  low-priced 
Catholic  competition,  so  long  as  Ulster  farmers  read 
sectarian  newspapers  in  the  loneliness  of  their  Ulster 
farms.  This  is  the  background  of  Ulster  "  oppres- 
sion." In  all  the  hideous  prejudice  that  Lord  Lon- 
donderry and  Sir  Edward  Carson  stirred  up  during 
the  home  rule  campaign  (perhaps  to  their  own  be- 
wilderment, after  all  their  bloodhound  baying)  there 
was  nothing  recent  or  ponderable  to  justify  religious 
apprehension.  "  I  know  Ireland  well,"  said  the  anti- 
nationalist  Walter  Long,  "  I  have  many  relations  and 
friends  there,  both  Protestant  and  Roman  Catholic; 
and  I  believe  that  religious  difficulties  will  be  settled 
by  the  common-sense  of  the  people."  This  is  the 
doctrine  to  which  fair  observation  admits  practically 
every  Irishman.  Yet  Sir  Edward  Carson  imported 
arms  from  Germany  making  a  cry  of  tyranny  and  co- 
ercion. He  set  Ulster  to  invoking  God,  "  humbly 
relying  on  the  God  whom  our  fathers  In  days  of  stress 
and  trial  confidently  trusted,"  and  aroused  the  anti- 
social sentiment  that  usually  goes  with  such  Prussian 
invocation,  to  range  it  against  the  "  conspiracy  "  of 
home  rule. 

[  370  ] 


The  deference  which  Mr.  Asqulth  and  Mr.  Lloyd 
George  paid  to  the  supposed  oppression  of  Ulster 
came  less  from  principle  than  from  policy.  There 
was  no  principle  by  which  Ulster  could  reveal  itself 
compromised  or  baulked  or  injured.  In  setting  itself 
up  to  veto  home  rule,  it  took  the  position  not  of  an 
offended  and  outraged  minority  but  of  a  resolute 
dictator.  The  proposal  of  Ulster  seclusion  was  re- 
jected by  John  Redmond  at  first,  at  last  submitted  to 
the  vote  of  Nationalist  party  delegates  in  Ulster,  and 
finally  assented  to,  only  to  be  thrown  aside  by  the 
Unionists.  The  difficulties  and  disadvantages  of  se- 
clusion are  certainly  enormous,  and  Ulster  was  really 
wise  to  reject  it,  but  its  rejection  can  only  mean  that 
a  genuine  measure  of  home  rule,  equivalent  to  the 
measure  conferred  on  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  is 
to  become  the  demand  of  Ireland. 

The  enactment  of  full  dominion  government  would 
prevent  the  injury  to  Ulster  that  might  occur  from  a 
supine  measure  like  the  Asquith  measure.  It  would 
hearten  Irishmen  everywhere  to  a  large  and  creative 
experiment.  It  would  afford  Ireland  that  "  moral 
satisfaction  "  without  which  it  has  been  handicapped 
and  depressed  in  all  its  relations  to  the  empire.  It 
would  make  it  a  full  and  a  glad  member  in  the  com- 
radeship of  the  dominions.  Anything  less  is  morally 
and  materially  dangerous. 

Until  England  takes  its  lesson  from  Campbell- 
Bannerman's  treatment  of  the  Boers  there  is  no 
hope  in  the  Irish  situation,  and  no  travesty  of  the 
South  African  convention  like  Lloyd  George's  Irish 
convention  —  appointed  with  too  obvious  intention 
from  groups  too  brazenly  manoeuvred  —  can  bring 
about  that  glorious  adjustment.  Mr.  S.  K.  Ratcliffe 
[  371  ] 


has  narrated  a  story,  possibly  a  parable,  of  that 
Liberal  act.  "  When  the  future  of  the  Boer  repub- 
lics was  being  considered,  Campbell-Bannerman  was 
talking  with  a  distinguished  Canadian  statesman. 
He  spoke  about  the  great  pressure  that  was  being 
brought  to  bear  upon  him  in  reference  to  delay  in 
the  granting  of  self-government  to  the  Boers,  and 
asked,  'What  is  your  advice?'  The  Canadian 
statesman  said:  'In  1837  Canada  was  in  revolu- 
,  tion.  You  trusted  us.  Have  you  ever  had  any  rea- 
son to  regret  that  action?  Do  the  same  for  South 
Africa,  and  you  will  have  the  same  result  and  the 
same  response.'  Campbell-Bannerman  said,  '  By 
God,  I  will ' —  and  he  did  it.  As  a  result,  we  have 
had  South  Africa  in  this  war  lined  up  with  the  older 
self-governing  colonies  of  Great  Britain,  and  the 
disruption  of  the  British  Empire  has  been  averted." 
The  destiny  of  Ireland  has  slipped  from  the  hands 
of  the  old  order  in  England.  A  new  order  Is  arising 
within  the  British  commonwealth,  and  It  Is  by  the 
statesmen  of  this  new  order  that  the  problem  of 
Ireland  must  be  solved.  An  imperial  history  has 
preceded  the  accession  of  British  labor  to  British 
government.  Ireland's  memory  of  this  history  will 
disappear  like  last  year's  leaves  If  the  believers  in 
British  democracy  apply  their  first  principles  to  the 
settlement  of  Ireland.  The  task  Is  a  creative  one. 
It  is  not  simply  a  task  of  assisting  stubborn  Ulster 
to  abide  with  the  nationalist,  nor  is  it  simply  a  task 
of  seeing  religious  Institutions  as  human  institutions, 
to  be  respected  as  well  as  restrained.  It  Is  a  more 
formidable  task.  The  new  England  has  to  trust  its 
own  belief  In  liberty  to  the  extent  of  trusting  in  Irish- 
men's liberty.     It  has  to  admit  Ireland  to  full  and 

[  372  ] 


free  membership  in  the  commonwealth  for  which  so 
many  Britons  have  died.  It  was  the  England  of 
privilege  that  sought  in  a  blind  moment  to  enforce 
conscription  on  Ireland.  The  bankruptcy  of  grudg- 
ing and  self-seelcing  England  was  never  more  com- 
pletely revealed.  It  was  these  very  qualities  in  the 
England  of  privilege  that  gave  democratic  England 
its  right  to  insist  upon  the  revision  of  existing  insti- 
tutions and  existing  concepts  of  government.  The 
new  order  is  on  the  verge  of  realization.  The  de- 
gree in  which  it  becomes  realized  is  the  degree  in 
which  Ulster  and  nationalist  Ireland  can  clear  their 
past  and  enter  into  their  common  destiny. 


[  373  ] 


XIV 

THE  WAY  TO  FREEDOM 

THE    END   OF    DOCILITY 

When  Daniel  O'Connell  died  at  Genoa  he 
ordered  that  his  body  should  be  sent  to  Ireland,  but 
his  heart  to  Rome.  "  A  disposition,"  said  John 
Mitchel,  "  which  proves  how  miserably  broken  and 
debilitated  was  that  once  potent  nature."  A  dispo- 
sition, on  the  contrary,  which  proved  the  essential 
division  and  debility  of  Daniel  O'Connell's  entire 
career.  "  He  was  a  Catholic,  sincere  and  devout," 
said  Mitchel,  "  and  would  not  see  that  the  church  had 
ever  been  the  enemy  of  Irish  Freedom."  That  is  the 
truth.  He  was  a  Catholic  who  feared  and  dreaded 
Revolution.  His  first  allegiance  was  to  his  religion, 
his  second  to  his  country.  Reared  in  abhorrence  of 
Napoleon,  he  believed  and  declared  that  no  revolu- 
tion was  worth  the  spilling  of  a  single  drop  of  blood. 
*'  He  was  an  aristocrat  by  position  and  by  taste;  and 
the  name  of  a  Republic  was  odious  to  him."  He 
was  the  child  of  authority.  He  strove  to  win  his 
way  by  feigning  violence,  by  "  eternally  half-un- 
sheathing a  visionary  sword."  But  he  was  one  of 
those  men  whose  scales  are  always  turned  by  a  power 
outside.  The  centre  of  his  being  was  not  within 
himself.  He  was  the  child  of  authority.  For  that 
reason,  possessing  no  effective  will  of  his  own,  he 

[374] 


Indoctrinated  cowardice,  and  his  doctrine  of  cow- 
ardice, as  M.  Paul-Dubois  rightly  calls  it,  "  is  proved 
untrue  by  the  whole  history  of  modern  liberty." 

The  doctrine  of  cowardice  has  always  had  its  ad- 
vocates in  Ireland.  It  has  long  fed  the  policy  of  non- 
resistance.  It  pretends  that  life  is  an  idyl  in  which 
effective  will  is  "  materialism  "  and  the  struggle  for 
survival  a  debasement  of  the  soul.  A  great  deal  is 
heard  of  Irish  conservatism :  this  is  its  fountain-head. 
In  the  name  of  spirituality  Ireland  is  asked  to  accept 
a  doctrine  of  laissez  faire,  to  glide  on  the  current  of 
authority. 

But  this  docile  programme  was  shattered  in 
Easter,  191 6.  The  earnestness  of  Padraic  Pearse's 
career  as  a  teacher,  we  are  told  by  P.  Browne  of 
Maynooth,  "  was  nothing  to  the  terrible  seriousness 
that  grew  upon  him  when  he  came  to  realize  the 
maladies  of  the  political  movement  that  was  sup- 
posed to  aim  at  Irish  nationhood."  Padraic  Pearse 
accepted  the  necessity  of  choosing  between  submis- 
sion and  rebellion.  "  The  Volunteers,  at  whose 
foundation  he  had  assisted,  were  at  first  negotiated 
with  and  then  divided  by  the  constitutional  party; 
the  original  founders,  who  determined  to  adhere  to 
their  principles,  were  left  high  and  dry  without  any 
constitutional  support.  The  conviction  gained  on 
him  that  only  blood  could  vivify  what  tameness  and 
corruption  had  weakened,  and  that  he  and  his  com- 
rades were  destined  to  go  down  the  same  dark  road 
by  which  so  many  brave  and  illustrious  Irishmen  had 
gone  before  them." 

This  tremendous  decision  of  Padraic  Pearse  and 
his  associates  was  not  the  result  of  temperamental 
intransigence.     No  whit  less  Catholic  than  Daniel 

[  375  ] 


O'Connell,  the  rebels  of  191 6  took  their  principle 
from  Thomas  Aquinas,  "  Human  law  is  law  only  by 
virtue  of  its  accordance  with  right  reason :  and  thus 
it  is  manifest  that  it  flows  from  the  eternal  law. 
And  in  so  far  as  it  deviates  from  right  reason  it  is 
called  an  unjust  law;  in  such  case  it  is  no  law  at  all, 
but  rather  a  species  of  violence."  The  rebels  took 
their  nationalism  as  right  reason,  against  the  com- 
promising of  the  parliamentary  party.  The  lethal 
effect  of  Westminster  on  nationalism  was  thus  dra^ 
matically  and  extravagantly  thrown  off. 

THE    NEW   ORDER 

The  history  of  Irish  freedom  now  dates  from 
19 1 6  because,  by  the  insurrection  of  19 16,  a  new 
norm  of  political  conduct  was  created  for  the  Irish 
people.  Before  the  insurrection  Ireland  felt  dis- 
contented but  impotent.  The  ways  of  English  poli- 
tics baffled  and  depressed  it,  and  the  preparations  of 
Ulster  were  like  a  bad  dream.  But  the  enormous 
effect  of  the  insurrection  on  the  government  —  the 
hasty  executions,  the  deportations,  the  inpouring 
of  troops  into  Ireland  and  the  establishment  of  mili- 
tary tribunals  —  convinced  Ireland  that  insurrection 
was  a  powerful  agitant,  and  this  greatly  invigorated 
the  national  will.  A  national  policy  that  seemed 
pardonable  before,  because  inevitable,  now  came  to 
be  considered  slack  and  trivial.  The  demands  of 
Ireland  rose  by  very  reason  of  the  sword  laid  against 
it. 

But  revolution  is  not  in  Itself  progress.  It  is  the 
violent  catharsis  of  a  poisoned  society,  a  convulsion 
which  predisposes  men  to  a  new  convulsion  at  any 

[  376  ] 


hint  of  old  obedience  and  is  likely  to  carry  them  from 
one  vast  impatience  to  another.  If  this  war  is  the 
iron  scourge  that  awaits  the  man  "  who  makes  his 
neighbor  responsible  for  his  own  bad  qualities," 
there  is  a  similar  scourge  awaiting  the  revolutionist. 
After  men  have  tasted  revolution  it  is  not  only  su- 
premely difficult  to  persuade  them  to  any  obedience, 
it  is  practically  impossible  to  make  them  face  their 
own  bad  qualities.  To  make  the  foreign  govern- 
ment responsible  —  that  becomes  the  mania  of  every 
sect  not  in  power,  so  fragile  are  the  silken  threads 
that  guide  the  human  barbarian. 

In  spite  of  every  intractability,  the  Irish  are  eventu- 
ally obliged  to  take  home  rule  as  their  goal  and  to 
formulate  the  terms  on  which  they  can  accept  it. 
They  must  return,  that  is  to  say,  to  constitutionalism. 
But  it  must  be  a  strong  and  definite  constitutionalism, 
not  the  menial  kind  accepted  by  the  parliamentary 
party  or  the  disdainful  constitutionalism  of  the  self- 
helpers.  The  first  inflexible  principle  of  this  new 
constitutionalism  should  be  fiscal  autonomy,  the  rais- 
ing of  Irish  revenue  by  Ireland  for  Ireland,  without 
interference  from  outside.  This  is  the  first  indis- 
pensable condition  of  political  freedom  for  Ireland. 
To  give  Westminster  the  control  of  Irish  finance  Is 
to  make  Irish  politics  revolve  around  the  imperial 
pork-barrel.  It  is  to  ensure  the  worst  kind  of  de- 
pendence and  to  prohibit  integrity. 

Before  the  insurrection,  a  number  of  Englishmen 
thought  the  best  thing  for  Ireland  would  be  to  ar- 
range its  dependence,  and  one  of  the  most  curious 
sights  in  high  politics  was  to  see  sleek  young  im- 
perialists pussy-footing  to  a  branch-office  settlement. 

[  377  ] 


The  tone  of  The  Round  Table  group  is  particularly 
worth  noting  in  this  connection.  I  have  underlined 
two  of  their  most  characteristic  phrases. 

"  If  ever  it  should  prove  expedient  to  unburden 
the  Parliament  of  the  United  Kingdom  by  delegat- 
ing to  the  inhabitants  of  England,  Ireland,  Scotland 
and  Wales  the  management  of  their  own  provincial 
affairs,  and  the  condition  of  Ireland  should  prove  no 
bar  to  such  a  measure,  the  Irish  problem  will  once 
for  all  have  been  closed."  The  v/ord  "  expedient  " 
is  not  a  bad  clue  to  modern  Round  Table  chivalry. 
It  makes  no  difference  that  the  succeeding  page 
breathes  of  love,  and  refers  sadly  to  "  Ireland  for- 
merly governed  not  in  her  own  Interests,  but  in  those 
of  Britain.  The  inevitable  failure  of  this  method." 
The  rebels  of  1916  had  much  too  masculine  an  atti- 
tude toward  history  to  relish,  "  I  know  what  is  good 
for  us  both  better  than  you  can  possibly  know  your- 
self." It  was  in  great  measure  to  kill  this  species 
of  fawning  kindness  that  Pearse  and  his  comrades 
took  up  arms.  To  federalism-by-ukase  they  an- 
swered Rebellion !  Better  to  be  extinguished  than  to 
submit  to  your  tactful  offices.  Better  than  this  velvet 
programme  to  expose,  back  of  it,  the  tenacious  im- 
perial claw. 

THE    CORNERSTONE 

But  the  alternatives  for  Ireland  are  not  federalism 
and  rebellion.  They  are  the  permanent  Interna- 
tional disgrace  of  England  and  genuine  home  rule. 
And  by  genuine  home  rule  is  meant  a  measure  which 
gives  Ireland  complete  control  of  Its  own  finances,  its 
own  excise  and  customs,  its  conscription;  its  adminis- 
tration of  everything  from  police  force  to  land  pur- 

[  378  ] 


chase,  and  its  place  alongside  Canada  and  Australia 
and  South  Africa  and  New  Zealand  in  imperial  rep- 
resentation and  conference.  The  importance  of  this 
status  is  partly  psychological.  It  is  mainly  instru- 
mental. If  Ireland  is  ever  to  recuperate  it  must  be 
established  in  those  free  institutions  which  have 
answered  the  large  purposes  of  the  colonies.  It  must 
be  treated  as  suffering  from  something  besides  ad- 
ministrative uneasiness.  Unlike  Wales  and  Scot- 
land, it  must  be  observed  to  need  an  entire  change  of 
polity.  It  requires  a  different  method  of  govern- 
ment, a  new  will  back  of  it,  a  special  regimen. 

The  details  of  the  regimen  are  beyond  the  scope 
of  this  book.  I  am  content  to  say  that  the  whole 
argument  for  Ireland's  status  as  a  dominion  has  been 
worked  out  to  many  Irishmen's  complete  satisfaction 
In  Mr.  Erskine  Childers's  The  Framework  of  Home 
Rule.  In  that  able  and  disinterested  volume  Mr. 
Childers  has  laid  down  "  the  broad  proposition  that, 
to  the  last  farthing,  Irish  revenue  must  govern  and 
limit  Irish  expenditure.  For  any  hardship  entailed 
in  achieving  that  aim  Ireland  will  find  superabundant 
compensation  in  the  moral  independence  which  is  the 
foundation  of  national  welfare.  She  will  be  sorely 
tempted  to  sell  part  of  her  freedom  for  a  price.  At 
whatever  cost,  she  will  be  wise  to  resist."  This  is 
not  self-evident  but  it  is  the  cornerstone  of  home 
rule  policy.  Until  it  is  conceded  there  is  no  use  con- 
sidering home  rule.  Many  do  not  agree  with  Mr. 
Childers  in  regarding  the  big  charge  of  old  age 
pensions  as  controllable.  Old  age  pensions  in  Ire- 
land might  have  been  less  per  capita,  but  they  were 
bound  to  be  a  monstrous  charge,  considering  the  huge 
proportion  of  old  people,  consequent  on  emigration. 

[  379  ] 


To  sustain  twice  as  many  old  people  as  Scotland, 
Ireland  ought  to  have  had  twice  the  population  of 
Scotland.  The  anomaly  of  emigration  gave  it 
twice  Scotland's  burden  on  a  population  not  even 
equal.  Nothing  could  more  completely  reveal  the 
unhealthy  economic  situation  in  Ireland.  Who 
should  be  paying  the  old  age  pensions  in  Ireland? 
The  emigrants,  naturally.  If  Ireland  could  tax 
those  emigrants  the  anomaly  would  not  exist. 
Thanks  to  the  emigration  policy,  Ireland  has  reaped 
this  colossal  harvest  of  dependents.  Had  it  pos- 
sessed fiscal  autonomy  It  might  have  paid  the  pen- 
sioners less  than  England,  but  this  expedient  could 
not  disguise  the  real  difficulty,  going  to  the  very 
bottom  of  centuries  of  bad  government.  This,  how- 
ever, is  only  one  item  in  expenditure  on  which  Mr. 
Childers  has  raised  a  debatable  point.  His  condem- 
nation of  the  "  contract  "  finance  that  mars  all  the 
home  rule  bills  hits  at  the  true  source  of  demoraliza- 
tion —  the  dissociation  of  revenue  and  expenditure, 
complicated  by  those  "  eleemosynary  benefits  "  of 
which  the  Unionists  make  so  much.  Mr.  Childers  is 
right  to  say  that  Ireland  must  accept  itself,  with  all 
its  abnormalities  and  anomalies,  for  the  sake  of  self- 
guidance,  and  he  is  wise  to  declare  that  the  habit 
"  of  expecting  '  restitution  '  for  funds  unwarrantably 
levied  in  the  past  "  must  be  broken.  Has  Ireland 
contributed  £300,000,000  to  the  imperial  exchequer 
since  the  union?  Then  the  thing  to  do  is  burn  books 
and  start  anew.  It  is  a  bitter  satisfaction  to  know 
that  Ireland  paid  England  in  the  past.  Contribu- 
tions in  future  must  be  voluntary,  and  Irish  house- 
keeping must  be  scaled  like  Denmark's  or  Norway's, 
not  like  Britain's. 

[  380  ] 


THE  FATE  OF  ULSTER 
Has  Ulster  any  cause  to  fear  the  economics  of  the 
Catholic  majority?  Perhaps  Mr.  Childers  is  biassed 
on  this  question.  He  has  watched  the  agricultural 
organization  society  and  admired  it.  "  Here,"  he 
has  said,  "  just  because  men  are  working  together  in 
a  practical,  self-contained,  home-ruled  organization 
for  the  good  of  the  whole  country,  you  will  find 
liberality,  open-mindedness,  brotherhood,  and  keen, 
intelligent  patriotism  from  Ulstermen  and  Southern- 
ers alike."  But  his  judgment  may  be  taken  into  ac- 
count, especially  as  the  idea  that  the  Irish  parliament 
will  divide  on  religious  lines  is  too  prevalent.  "  The 
Customs  tariff  is  an  Irish  question,"  Mr.  Childers 
puts  it,  "  not  an  Ulster  question.  The  interests  of 
the  Protestant  farmers  of  North-East  Ulster  are 
identical  with  those  of  the  rest  of  Ireland,  and  obvi- 
ously it  will  be  a  matter  of  the  profoundest  import- 
ance for  Ireland  as  a  whole  to  safeguard  the  interests 
of  the  ship-building  and  linen  industries  in  the  North 
in  whatever  way  may  seem  best."  This  seems  to  me 
inescapable.  I  have  heard  some  mean  comments  on 
Belfast  in  the  south  of  Ireland  —  comments  on  man- 
ners and  morals  to  match  Belfast's  comments  on  Dub- 
lin —  but  outside  this  agacement  I  think  all  Irishmen 
are  proud  of  Belfast.  This  pride  rises  up  when  the 
segregation  of  Ulster  is  argued.  There  is  a  sprin- 
kling of  Ulstermen  all  through  the  Cathohc  south, 
after  all,  and  the  Gilmores  and  Shields  and  Smiths 
and  Wilsons  and  McElroys  and  McConnells  and 
Riddles  and  Burdens  add  an  extraordinarily  advan- 
tageous leaven  to  the  ordinary  Catholic  lump.  To 
leave  Ulster  out  of  home  rule  would  be  an  Irish 

[  381  ] 


calamity.  That  is  the  conviction  on  which  a  fiscal 
policy  would  be  founded,  and  the  only  danger  to  Ire- 
land would  be  the  danger  that  England  has  experi- 
enced in  its  partnership  with  the  Scot. 

"  Every  Scotchman  is  an  Englishman,  but  an  Eng- 
lishman is  not  a  Scotchman,"  President  Lowell  of 
Harvard  has  permitted  himself  to  disclose.  "  The 
Scotch  regard  themselves  as  an  elect  race  who  are 
entitled  to  all  the  rights  of  Englishmen  and  to  their 
own  privileges  besides.  All  English  offices  ought  to 
be  open  to  them,  but  Scotch  posts  are  the  natural 
heritage  of  the  Scots.  They  take  part  freely  in  the 
debates  on  legislation  affecting  England  alone,  but 
in  their  opinion  acts  confined  to  Scotland  ought  to 
be,  and  in  fact  they  are  in  the  main,  governed  by  the 
opinion  of  the  Scotch  members.  Such  a  condition  is 
due  partly  to  the  fact  that  Scotch  institutions  and 
ideas  are  sufficiently  distinct  from  those  of  England 
to  require  special  treatment,  and  not  different  enough 
to  excite  repugnance.  It  is  due  in  part  also  to  the 
fact  that  the  Scotch  are  both  a  homogeneous  and  a 
practical  people,  so  that  all  classes  can  unite  in  com- 
mon opinions  about  religion,  politics  and  social  jus- 
tice. The  result  is  that  Scotland  is  governed  by 
Scotchmen  in  accordance  with  Scotch  ideas,  while 
Ireland  has  been  governed  by  Englishmen,  and  until 
recently,  in  accordance  with  English  ideas." 

This  is  an  exceedingly  acute  analysis  of  a  tenacious 
national  temperament,  and  I  am  bold  enough  to 
prophesy  that  the  fate  of  England  will  in  turn  be  the 
fate  of  Ireland.  Ulster  will  come  into  the  Irish 
parliament  scov/ling  noli  me  tangere,  and  the  south- 
ern Irish  will  be  paralyzed  with  fear.  The  elect 
race  will  then  proceed  to  run  the  government.  As 
[  382  ] 


the  outcome  of  a  long  fight  for  independence  It  will 
be  rather  an  anti-climax,  but  Ireland  will  have  itself 
to  thank.  Having  been  a  "  bear  "  on  home  rule  for 
thirty  years,  Ulster  is  in  a  perfect  position  to  act  the 
part  of  injured  innocence  and  I  can  see  the  south  of 
Ireland  tumbling  over  itself  to  show  Its  good  nature. 
It  is  not  for  nothing  that  the  emblem  of  Scotland  Is 
the  thistle.  But  in  being  so  eager  to  swallow  the 
thistle  the  southern  Irish  are  raising  some  doubt  as 
to  the  correct  emblem  for  new  Ireland. 

THE    HOPE    OF    HOME    RULE 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  home  rule  means 
the  beginning  of  appropriate  administration  In  Ire- 
land. "  The  administration  of  Ireland  has  been  the 
conspicuous  failure  of  the  English  government,"  Mr. 
Lowell  has  summed  up.  "  Its  history  for  a  century 
has  been  a  long  tale  of  expedients,  palliations  and 
concessions,  which  have  never  availed  to  secure  either 
permanent  good  order  or  the  contentment  and  loyalty 
of  the  inhabitants.  Each  step  has  been  taken,  not  of 
foresight,  but  under  pressure.  The  repressive  meas- 
ures have  been  avowedly  temporary,  devised  to  meet 
an  emergency,  not  part  of  a  permanent  policy;  while 
concessions,  which  If  granted  earlier  might  have  had 
more  effect,  have  only  come  when  attention  to  the 
matter  has  been  compelled  by  signs  of  widespread 
and  grievous  discontent.  Catholic  emancipation 
was  virtually  won  by  the  Clare  election;  disestablish- 
ment of  the  Anglican  church  was  hastened  by  the 
Fenian  movement;  the  home  rule  bill  followed  the 
growth  of  the  Irish  parliamentary  party,  culminating 
in  Parnell's  hold  upon  the  balance  of  power  in  the 
House  of  Commons;  and  the  land  laws  have  resulted 

[  383  ] 


from  agrarian  agitation.  .  .  .  The  fact  is  that  Irish 
problems  He  beyond  the  experience  of  the  EngHsh 
member  and  his  constituents.  Being  unable  to  dis- 
tinguish readily  a  real  grievance  from  an  unreason- 
able demand,  he  does  not  heed  it  until  he  is  obliged 
to;  and  the  cabinet,  with  its  hands  already  full,  is 
not  inclined  to  burn  its  fingers  with  matters  in  which 
the  House  is  not  deeply  or  generally  Interested.  All 
this  is  merely  one  of  the  many  illustrations  of  the 
truth  that  parliamentary  government  can  work  well 
only  so  far  as  the  nation  itself  is  fairly  homogeneous 
in  its  political  aspirations." 

With  the  establishment  of  dominion  home  rule, 
Ireland  may  look  for  whatever  good  there  is  to  be 
found  in  parliamentary  government,  and  not  the 
least  of  that  good  may  be  a  certain  healthy  disillu- 
sion. Some  women  have  gone  through  divorce  and 
re-marriage  only  to  discover  through  their  experi- 
ence of  a  second  husband  that  many  of  the  first  hus- 
band's despised  faults  were  mere  average  masculin- 
ity. Ireland  may  discover  that  a  good  many  of  the 
defects  of  English  rule  were  simply  the  average 
defects  of  all  rule,  with  perhaps  a  superior  technique 
to  England's  credit.  But  the  benefits  of  self-govern- 
ment will  enormously  compensate  for  such  disillu- 
sion. And  these  benefits,  the  fruits  of  democracy, 
will  for  the  first  time  be  Ireland's. 

No  democrat  fears  self-government  for  Ireland. 
The  democrat  believes  that  it  is  best  for  human  be- 
ings to  learn  to  judge  for  themselves.  He  believes 
that  inflexible  institutions  are  too  frequently  sacri- 
ficial, and  distort  men's  natural  desires.  Only  a  fool 
will  deny  that  freedom  is  dangerous.  It  neither 
connotes  nor  assures  virtue.    By  putting  a  higher  and 

[384] 


heavier  responsibility  on  the  individual,  it  makes 
failure  more  serious.  Emancipation  does  not  mean 
Immunity  from  duty.  It  simply  means  a  greater  ease 
in  ascertaining  and  performing  duty,  a  greater  power 
to  verify  one's  means  and  one's  ends.  It  is  idle  to 
pretend  that  accession  of  power  cannot  encourage  the 
immoderate  love  of  self.  The  greater  a  man's  lib- 
erty, the  more  dangerous  his  possibilities.  But 
while  the  democrat  admits  all  this,  he  insists  that 
when  men  do  not  judge  for  themselves,  when  they 
resign  their  destiny  to  a  superior  will,  they  are  often 
not  only  compelled  to  go  against  their  grain  —  which 
is  often  wholesome  —  but  they  are  actually  treated 
like  slaves,  forced  to  act  against  their  own  Interests, 
their  own  well-being,  their  own  disinterested  prefer- 
ences, their  own  conscience.  They  find  themselves, 
to  use  familiar  words,  exploited  and  oppressed. 
Believing  that  no  man  should  be  forced  to  make  such 
essential  sacrifices  for  the  sake  of  a  selfish  master, 
the  democrat  stresses  the  natural  desires  and  rights 
of  mankind.  He  does  not  assert  that  every  man 
is  a  law  unto  himself.  He  does  not  say  that  subor- 
dination Is  essentially  vile.  He  does  not  believe  that 
life  is  a  perpetual  assertion  of  his  own  rights  against 
the  rights  of  others.  He  does  not  take  as  his  model 
the  barnyard,  where  the  only  bit  of  fodder  that  at- 
tracts a  hungry  chicken  is  the  bit  that  is  already  pre- 
empted. The  democrat  believes  in  goodwill  and  co- 
operation, in  deference  as  well  as  preference.  Bu/»; 
he  also  believes  In  keeping  a  firm  grip  on  his  moral 
homestead,  in  consulting  his  own  deepest  needs  and 
desires.  In  manifesting  them,  and  in  securing  in  this 
world  the  fullest  possible  scope  for  the  powers  with 
which  he  was  born  endowed,  or  which  he  discovers 

[  385  ] 


as  he  proceeds  through  life.  He  Is  just  as  much 
opposed  to  the  mean  and  jealous  tyrannies  of  caste, 
as  to  the  stupidity  and  cruelty  of  bad  government. 
And  he  is  just  as  anxious  to  resist  caste  and  bu- 
reaucracy for  society's  sake  as  for  his  own,  since  he 
knows  that  more  people  hate  meanness  and  jealousy, 
stupidity  and  cruelty,  than  love  them;  and  that  these 
things  frustrate  the  fine  possibilities  of  our  present 
human  estate. 

It  would  be  pleasant  to  believe  that  the  nationalist 
and  the  democrat  come  to  the  same  conclusion  from 
opposite  sides,  like  two  shear  blades.  Such,  no 
doubt,  would  be  the  ideal  conclusion  If  men  could 
interlock  democracy  and  nationalism.  But  at  the 
present  time  no  one  can  pretend  that  the  blades  are 
interlocked.  They  are  crossed,  but  In  conflict,  not 
In  union. 

Democracy  Is  occupied,  at  bottom,  with  human 
agreements.  It  does  not  aim,  as  some  people  fondly 
imagine,  at  a  rigid  Inexorable  agreement,  a  compact 
of  mediocrity.  It  aims,  rather,  that  men  should 
agree  on  certain  uniform  requirements,  In  order  that 
they  may  be  free  to  differ  In  spirit.  It  Inevitably 
designs  a  constitution,  a  written  agreement,  and  It 
aims  to  have  every  man  a  competent  partner  In  that 
agreement.  In  order  that  the  work  of  the  world  may 
be  efficiently  discharged,  not  as  an  enterprise  in 
which  men  are  joined  for  an  ulterior  motive,  but  as 
a  preliminary  to  a  larger  personal  life. 

Nationalism,  on  the  other  hand,  looks  to  the  end 
rather  than  the  means.  It  Is  less  concerned  with 
the  Internal  arrangements  of  a  nation  than  with  Its 
consensus  of  emotion.  It  is  occupied,  at  bottom, 
with  human   differences.     It  says   that  men  differ 

[  386  ] 


from  the  rest  of  the  world,  in  order  that  they  may 
agree  among  themselves.  It  is  concerned,  far  more 
than  democracy,  with  ulterior  motives  and  external 
emphases,  with  leadership  and  heroes.  It  resents 
and  resists  intrusion,  not  on  the  ground  of  political 
or  economic  unsuitability  but  on  the  ground  of  social 
dissimilarity.  It  is  jealous  of  its  homogeneous  so- 
cial character,  and  anxious  about  its  powers  of  as- 
similation. 

Nationalists  strive  for  congrulty,  assert  congru- 
ity  and  feel  congruity.  For  them  nationhood  is  the 
evidence  of  an  organism  which,  in  the  end,  simply 
declares  "  I  am."  Their  organism  exists.  And 
while  this  existence  is  justified  as  a  moral  reality  by 
thousands  upon  thousands  of  human  beings,  the 
morality  is  an  afterthought.  There  is  something  in 
the  sentiment  of  nationhood  that  precedes  morality 
—  something  like  an  egoism,  which  answers  no  ques- 
tions and  gives  no  explanations,  offers  no  credentials 
and  submits  to  no  parley,  but  asserts  itself,  obdu- 
rately and  incontinently,  regardless  of  convenience  or 
"  justice."  It  is  a  talent  of  mankind,  vital  and  dan- 
gerous, capable  of  producing  and  economizing  hap- 
piness, capable  also  of  a  competitive  ferocity  which 
disregards  the  simplest  lessons  of  democracy  and 
makes  an  ideal  of  its  cruel  leonine  will. 

THE    FRUITS   OF    HOME   RULE 

Before  the  war,  for  example,  Irish  reconstruction 
was  halted  by  the  fears  of  vital  nationalism,  if  one 
may  so  characterize  all  the  racial  and  religious  and 
economic  prejudices  that  concentrate  into  the  In- 
sensate opposition  of  Ulster.  It  is  pathetic  to  reflect 
in  19 1 8  that  there  was  nothing  more  immutable  to 

[387] 


hinder  Irish  development  in  that  crisis  than  the  un- 
tutored nationalism  of  man.  Such  is  no  longer  the 
case.  The  misfortune  that  has  since  befallen  the 
whole  world  cannot  help  affecting  the  prospects  and 
destiny  of  Ireland.  While  many  farmers  in  Ireland 
have  made  money  during  the  war,  the  finer  dreams 
for  Irish  welfare  are  darkened  and  obscured  by  uni- 
versal waste  and  suffering.  Most  of  the  wise 
schemes  for  social  reconstruction  depend  on  cumula- 
tive activity,  and  whatever  the  defects  of  government 
both  England  and  the  United  States  have  been  ma- 
turing great  lessons  in  education  and  political  science. 
The  penalty  of  war  is  too  Inordinate  and  oppressive 
to  leave  this  development  of  human  resources  un- 
hampered. A  city  that  has  writhed  in  an  earthquake 
may  be  "  reconstructed,"  but  after  supreme  efforts 
have  been  spent  In  clearing  new  foundations  and  re- 
building, the  old  capital  values  are  not  yet  even  re- 
stored. Since  the  war  began  six  hundred  million 
people  have  been  busy  consuming  their  capital,  and 
the  most  titanic  efforts  will  be  needed  before  bare 
subsistence  can  once  more  be  guaranteed.  One  re- 
quires to  be  on  excellent  terms  with  the  inscrutable 
to  take  this  calmly;  and  a  weak  nation  like  Ireland 
may  easily  tremble  over  the  edge  of  convalescence 
and  collapse  forever  under  the  vital  expenditures  of 
this  epoch.  All  of  us  carry  from  the  cradle  the 
pleasant  and  wistful  Illusion  that  a  hand  is  guiding 
us,  that  a  kindly  light  is  leading  us.  No  such  secur- 
ity exists.  When  one  turns  to  study  the  southern 
United  States  in  their  long,  dazed  journey  from  the 
brink  of  the  grave  after  the  Civil  War,  the  possibili- 
ties of  pernicious  social  anaemia  become  more  real. 
Small  matters  like  the  extirpation  of  patronage  out 

[388] 


of  civil  service  then  become  great  matters.  The 
business  of  government  becomes  a  precious  responsi- 
bility, with  desolate  emptiness  or  forced  abnegation 
as  the  alternatives  to  regaining  vitality.  This  is 
what  Ireland  faces.  Even  if  the  war  does  not  drain 
away  its  tiny  strength,  it  will  be  compelled  to  join 
the  fierce  economic  struggle  that  is  to  be  renewed 
once  peace  is  signed.  And  in  that  struggle  the  mad- 
ness of  war  will  still  inflame  men's  veins. 

A    RAILROAD   POLICY 

One  practical  problem  like  the  railway  problem  In 
Ireland  must  suffice  to  illustrate  the  demand  on  Irish 
statesmanship.  Can  £20,000,000  be  raised  to  na- 
tionalize the  railways?  The  majority  report  of  the 
viceregal  commission  urges  regular  supplies,  large 
consignments,  good  packing  of  produce,  and  co- 
operation among  producers,  but,  it  continues,  "  if 
the  export  trade  in  agricultural  products  has  not  ex- 
panded as  much  as  the  proximity  of  Ireland  to  Great 
Britain  might  have  led  us  to  expect,  in  view  of  the 
rapid  increase  in  British  exports  from  foreign  coun- 
tries, the  case  of  other  Irish  industries  Is  even  worse, 
since,  with  few  exceptions,  they  have  not  only  shown 
no  expansion,  but  have  declined,  sometimes  to  the 
point  of  extinction.  Of  such  declines  the  woollen 
trade,  and  the  textile  and  pottery  industries,  furnish 
conspicuous  examples.  With  regard  to  the  last  we 
were  told  that  works  had  been  closed,  owing  to  short- 
age of  labor  due  to  the  loss  of  population  by  emi- 
gration. .  .  .  The  export  rates,  and  also  the  local 
rates,  should  be  reduced  where  reduction  Is  essential 
to  the  development  of  Irish  Industry,  but  this  is  a 
policy  which  the  existing  companies  cannot  be  ex- 

[  389] 


pected  to  adopt,  and  we  can  see  no  adequate  means 
of  putting  It  into  effect  unless  by  acquisition,  unifica- 
tion, and  public  direction  of  all  the  Irish  railways. 
...  If  the  decline  of  Irish  industries  in  general,  and 
the  total  disappearance  of  many,  were  largely  the 
result  of  what  we  may  term  the  earlier  transit  ar- 
rangements, it  is  plain  that  the  changes  necessary  to 
encourage  the  revival  of  those  defunct  manufactur- 
ers, now  that  a  fully  developed  system  of  import 
through  rates  and  transit  facilities  is  In  active  opera- 
tion, must  be  comprehensive  and  far-reaching.  In 
our  view  the  Irish  railways  have  not  been,  and  are 
not,  '  fully  utilized  '  for  the  development  of  general 
industries  In  Ireland,  owing  to  the  competitive  rates 
on  Imported  goods  being  so  much  lower  In  scale  than 
the  local  rates,  that  the  development  of  local  manu- 
factures has  been  discouraged  and  prevented,  rather 
than  assisted  as  It  should  have  been." 

These  conclusions  were  undoubtedly  Influenced  by 
the  premier  of  New  Zealand  and  by  various  Austra- 
lian witnesses,  testifying  to  the  common  advantage 
of  governing  railways  with  a  view  to  service  rather 
than  dividends.  The  minority  report  did  not  fail  to 
point  out  that  conditions  In  Ireland  and  Australia 
are  not  similar.  The  majority  politely  agreed,  but 
clung  to  the  principle  of  public  service,  especially  in 
regard  to  financing  and  managing  Irish  railways. 
No  board  of  commercial  men  and  railway  directors, 
according  to  this  principle.  "  We  recommend  that 
the  unified  railways  be  controlled  and  administered 
by  an  Irish  Railways  Board  composed  of  twenty 
directors,  twelve  elected  to  represent  the  ratepayers 
of  Ireland,  two  nominated  by  the  treasury,  two 
nominated  by  the  lord  lieutenant,  and,  with  a  view 

[  390  ] 


to  the  direct  representation  of  important  interests 
and  industries,  one  elected  by  the  Irish  port  and  har- 
bor authorities,  one  by  the  Irish  chambers  of  com- 
merce, one  by  the  Irish  industrial  development  asso- 
ciations, and  one  by  the  associations  of  the  Irish  cat- 
tle trade."  As  to  finance,  "  we  recommend  that  the 
acquisition  of  the  railways  be  effected  by  the  issue  of 
a  state  guaranteed  stock,  the  interest  on  which  would 
be  a  just  charge  on  the  net  revenue  of  the  unified 
system."  A  general  rate,  plus  a  state  grant,  should 
meet  any  deficit. 

This  is  a  broad  policy.  Can  Ireland  force  it 
through,  with  the  prospect  of  fiscal  advantage  be- 
yond? This  is  the  kind  of  question  that  makes  a  full 
home  rule  measure  so  enormously  important.  A 
small  measure  will  be  another  effort  to  huddle  up  a 
festering  wound. 

THE   DEMOCRATIC   MINIMUM 
Two   apparently   opposed  opinions   come   to  my 
mind  as  I  say  this.     One  is  John  Morley's,  the  other 
Dr.  Carl  Jung's. 

Speaking  of  reforms  passionately  desired,  political 
hopes  passionately  held,  John  Morley  remarks  char- 
acteristically, "  There  is  nothing  more  amusing  or 
more  Instructive  than  to  turn  to  the  debates  in  par- 
liament or  the  press  upon  some  innovating  proposal, 
after  an  Interval  since  the  proposal  was  accepted  by 
the  legislature.  The  flaming  hopes  of  its  friends,, 
the  wild  and  desperate  prophecies  of  its  antagonists, 
are  found  to  be  each  as  ill-founded  as  the  other. 
The  measure  which  was  to  do  such  vast  good  accord- 
ing to  the  one,  such  portentous  evil  according  to  the 
other,  has  done  only  a  part  of  the  promised  good, 
[  391  ] 


and  has  done  none  of  the  threatened  evil.  The  true 
lesson  from  this  is  one  of  perseverance  and  thor- 
oughness from  the  improver,  and  one  of  faith  in  the 
self-protectiveness  of  a  healthy  society  for  the  con- 
servative. The  master  error  of  the  latter  is  to  sup- 
pose that  men  are  moved  mainly  by  their  passions 
rather  than  their  interests,  that  all  their  passions  are 
presumably  selfish  and  destructive,  and  that  their  own 
interests  can  seldom  be  adequately  understood  by 
the  persons  most  directly  concerned.  How  many 
fallacies  are  involved  in  this  group  of  propositions, 
the  reader  may  well  be  left  to  judge  for  himself." 

Out  of  these  grave  and  subdued  reflections,  as  out 
of  everything  John  Tvlorley  writes,  there  comes  a 
sense  of  that  powerful  sanity,  that  patient  tolerance 
of  durable  fact,  which  makes  him  a  clue  to  the 
temper  of  sound  structural  politics.  But  we  who  see 
the  four  walls  of  Ireland  standing  bare  without  the 
roof  cannot  dwell  on  the  vanity  of  ill-founded  hopes. 
We  must  turn  to  those  who  never  tire  of  proclaiming 
their  faith  in  self-reliance  and  independence,  and  who 
disregard  the  timid  and  the  conserv^ative.  "  The 
moralist  least  of  all  trusts  God,"  as  Carl  Jung  has 
said,  "  for  he  thinks  that  the  beautiful  tree  of  human- 
ity can  only  thrive  by  dint  of  being  pruned,  bound, 
and  trained  on  a  trellis,  whereas  Father-Sun  and 
Mother-Earth  have  combined  to  make  It  grow  joy- 
fully in  accordance  with  its  own  law^s,  which  are  full 
of  the  deepest  meaning."  It  is  this  faith  In  the  indi- 
vidual, combined  with  a  belief  that  "  a  metamorpho- 
sis in  the  attitude  of  the  individual  Is  the  only  possi- 
ble beginning  of  a  transformation  in  the  psychology 
of  the  nation,"  which  convinces  me  that  the  Irish 
people  must  concede  nothing  of  their  demand  for  a 

[  392  ] 


democratic  minimum,   full  fiscal  autonomy  and  do- 
minion home  rule. 

l'envoi 

Standing  at  this  point  to  look  back  on  Irish  his- 
tory, I  see  nothing  to  bind  my  soul.  They  call  Ire- 
land the  dark  Rosaleen,  a  woman  beautiful  and  vio- 
lated. She  was  ravished  from  her  house,  seized  in 
Imperial  lust,  beaten,  broken,  brutalized,  seduced, 
and  thrown  aside.  False  was  her  betrayer,  heartless 
and  cold.  And  now  she  stands  before  his  gates,  a 
tear  in  her  eye,  the  woman  who  has  suffered  wrong. 
It  is  a  bitter  accusation,  my  brooding  mother,  but  this 
is  a  bitter  world.  Be  hard!  Many  a  woman  who 
has  suffered  wrong  has  wrapped  her  cloak  about  her, 
and  steeled  her  wounded  heart.  Wisely,  bravely, 
clearly,  she  has  borne  her  wounds.  There  is  always 
the  future;  and  life  needs  a  strong  hand. 

"What  have  I  to  do  with  lamentation?"  The 
tradition  of  Ireland  Is  priceless.  On  Empire's  neck 
hangs  the  sacred  albatross.  England,  glorious  Eng- 
land, proud  and  mighty,  dream  of  loyal  warriors, 
heritage  of  crafty  rulers  —  what  has  she  but  the 
burden  of  the  world  ?  Poor  England,  I  say  and  feel. 
I  think  of  Henry,  tow-headed,  sturdy,  blunt,  pluck- 
ing the  beards  of  the  Irish  chieftains  and  laughing 
at  their  wattled  roofs.  A  magnificent  creature, 
Henry,  brave  and  resourceful  beyond  belief,  alive  in 
every  fibre,  the  cells  in  his  body  bounding  with  a 
special  dazzling  speed.  Power  —  he  wanted  power 
over  everything,  turned  precedents  upside  down, 
wrenched  classes  by  their  roots,  bullied  saints,  defied 
popes,  leaped  from  island  to  continent  and  continent 
to  island,  rode  four  horses  at  a  gallop,  and  huzza'd 

[  393  ] 


to  Heaven.  And  then,  an  old  Henry,  wounded  in 
his  lair,  breathless,  listening-  for  the  crackle  of  the 
brambles,  stalked  to  the  death  by  his  own  thin-lipped 
sons.  He  played  to  win,  gaining  with  that  radiant 
smile,  nimble  of  wit,  tearing  the  heart  out  of  learned 
books  in  the  intervals  of  action,  faithful  to  none, 
but  close  to  reality,  drawing  all  men  to  the  fire  of  life. 
And  the  radiance  dies,  leaving  Ireland  cowered  in 
the  corner,  horror  In  her  eyes,  the  sickly  moonlight 
on  the  wreckage  of  her  feast,  broken  bread,  spilled 
wine. 

Brass  knuckles  beat  on  bare  flesh  when  the  Nor- 
mans fought  the  Gaels.  They  came  from  rich  and 
haughty  towns,  insolent  with  life.  They  found  the 
Gaels  simple  and  isolated,  ready  for  war,  able  to 
die,  but  children  in  the  way  of  the  world.  Castles  of 
stone  rose  over  the  Irish  towns,  and  the  dragon 
ravened  through  the  land.  It  was  hell  on  earth,  in 
its  time.  But  that  dragon  is  decrepit  at  last.  If  we 
be  St.  Georges,  let  us  meet  the  dragon  that  still 
breathes  fire. 

Today  those  impregnable  castles  have  suffered  one 
price  of  being  impregnable  —  they  are  sterile,  bar- 
ren, dead,  the  sepulchre  of  their  class.  Lonely  cas- 
tles, with  a  lonely  English  servitor  at  the  wicket,  dry 
of  human  kindness  for  want  of  milking,  and  no  one 
at  home  —  a  peacock  lording  it  in  the  solitude  of  the 
lawn.  Are  they  to  be  envied,  the  inheritors,  cut  off 
from  warm  variegated  life,  chilly  in  their  loftiness, 
excluded  from  the  friendly  hearth?  I  would  not 
wear  a  Norman  coronet  in  Ireland,  and  sit  in  the 
wind  of  antipathy,  for  all  the  revenue  in  the  land. 
They  are  cheered,  of  course,  by  their  own.  But  it  is 
hard  to  conduct  the  sap  when  the  bark  is  stripped. 

[  394  ] 


Their  branch  rises  high,  but  does  not  pull  well  from 
the  roots. 

Why  should  we  afflict  ourselves  with  the  memories 
of  these  sterile  castles?  Did  the  ancestor  of  the 
Cootes  say  he  "  liked  such  frolics  "  when  a  soldier 
stuck  a  Wicklow  baby,  and  danced  it  aloft  on  his 
pike?  Did  the  ancestor  of  Birr  Castle  order  babies 
to  be  killed,  because  "nits  will  make  lice"?  Did 
another  ancestor,  the  Irish  Privy  Council  of  their 
time,  change  the  branding  of  priests  with  a  red-hot 
iron  to  castration,  "  the  most  effectual  method  that 
can  be  found  out,  to  clear  this  nation  of  those  dis- 
turbers of  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  Kingdom  "  ? 
True,  every  bit,  but  no  longer  binding  the  future. 
Let  the  Irish  hug  these  memories,  and  believe  one 
Coote  to  be  another  Coote,  one  Earl  of  Rosse  to  be 
another  Earl  of  Rosse,  and  life  will  be  a  mere  in- 
heritance of  woe.  There  is  a  new  day  in  the  land,  a 
day  that  looks  forward,  a  young  day.  And  one  only 
looks  back,  as  I  do,  to  look  out  and  beyond. 


THE    END 


I  395  ] 


APPENDIX 

THE   SKELETON   OF   IRELAND 


THE  SKELETON  OF  IRELAND 
I.    POPULATION  1 

1.  The  total  number  of  Irish  emigrants  from  May  i, 
1 85 1,  to  December  31,  1914,  was  4,399,390.  This  emigra- 
tion of  63  years  exceeds  the  present  total  population. 

2.  Since  1846  the  population  of  Ireland  has  steadily  fallen. 
Since  1 80 1  the  population  of  the  United  Kingdom  has 
steadily  risen.  The  figures  of  Ireland  and  Scotland  are 
worth  comparing: 

Ireland  Scotland 
Population  Per  sq.  mile  Population  Per  sq.  mile 

1801    5,395,456  166  1,608,420  54 

181 1    5.937,856  186  1,805,864  60 

1821    6,801,827  209  2,091,521  70 

1831    .. 7,767,401  239  2,364,386  79 

1841    8,175,124  251  2,620,184  88 

1851    6,552,385  201  2,888,742  97 

1861    5,798,564  178  3,062,294  100 

1871    5,412,377  167  3,360,018  113 

1881    5,174.836  159  3,735,573  125 

1891    4,704,750  144  4,025,647  135 

1901    4,458,775  137  4,472,103  150 

1911    4,390,219  135  4,760,904  160 

3.  The  marriage  rate  is  exceedingly  low  in  Ireland, 
partly  owing  to  the  steady  emigration  of  persons  of  mar- 
riageable ages.  Comparing  Ireland  and  Scotland  in  1900, 
when  the  populations  were  practically  equal  (4,450,000), 
these  were  the  figures: 

1  These  figures  are  from  The  Statesman's  Year-Book,  with  a  few 
exceptions. 

[  399  ] 


Ireland  Scotland 

Births    101,459  131,401 

Deaths    87,606  82,296 

Marriages     22,3 1 1  32,444 

4.  The  proportion  of  defectives  in  Ireland  is  the  highest 
in  the  British  Isles. 

Ireland      Scotland 

Insane    (1911)     24,394  18,636 

Blind  ( 1900)   4,263  3,253 

5.  The  distribution  of  religions  in  Ulster  is  important  in 
connection  with  home  rule.  The  figures  published  in  the 
census  reports  of  191 1  were  as  follows: 


Cath-     Prot-     Presby-   Meth-     0th- 


CouNTY  Total 

Antrim     478,603 

Armagh     ....  119,625 

Cavan    91,071 

Donegal    ....  168,420 

Down     304,589 

Fermanagh   ..  6i,8n 

Londonderry  .  140,621 

Monaghan     . .  71, 395 

Tyrone    142,437 


OLIO 

EST  A  NT 

TERIAN 

ODIST 

ERS 

118,449 

128,552 

188,018 

20,377 

32,207 

54.147 

38,867 

18,962 

5,010 

2,639 

74,188 

12,954 

2,920 

768 

241 

132,943 

17,975 

15,064 

1,697 

741 

78,946 

78,695 

116,971 

11,497 

18,480 

34,749 

21,121 

1,265 

3,995 

68i 

64,436 

27,080 

43,191 

1,939 

3,975 

53,341 

8,644 

8,635 

389 

386 

78,935 

32,283 

26,540 

2,818 

1,861 

Total    1,578,572     690,134     366,171     421,566     48,490     52,211 

6.  In  all  Ireland  religions  were  distributed  as  follows  in 
1911: 

Cathohcs    3,242,670 

Protestant    

Presbyterians     

Methodists     

Jews     

All  others    

Information  refused   

7.  Because  Ireland  is  predominantly  agricultural  and 
Scotland  predominantly  industrial,  all  comparisons  are  likely 
to  be  misleading.  It  is  corrective  to  note  the  differences  in 
national  occupation. 

[  400  ] 


Total 

Percentage 

,242,670 

73-9 

576,611 

I3-I 

440,525 

1 0.0 

62,382 

1.4 

5,148 

.2 

60,504 

1-3 

2,379 

.1 

Ireland 

Urban  1,384,929 

Rural    3,005,290 

Ireland  (1911) 

Occupation  Males  Females 

Professional  class    103,603  37,531 

Domestic    25,831  144,918 

Commercial   101,396  9,747 

Agricultural    721,669  59,198 

Industrial     434,699  178,698 

Indefinite  and  non-produc- 
tive    804,850  1,768,079 

Scotland  (1911)^ 

Occupation  Males  Females 

Government  and  defence.  .     42,476  4,932 

Professional   45,7i3  35,962 

Domestic    34,488  166,578 

Commercial  and  transport,  245,621  37,844 

Agricultural  and   fishing..  193,731  33, 380 

Industrial     911,728  315,514 

Unoccupied    and    non-pro- 
ductive     309,024  1,333,410 


Scotland 
3,591,276 
1,169,628 


Total 
I4I.I34 
170,749 
111,143 
780,867 

613,397 
2,572,929 


Total 

47,408 

81,675 

201,066 

283,465 

227,111 

1,226,242 

i>647.434 


II.    WEALTH 

I.  Ireland  is  a  poor  country.  A  few  illustrative  figures 
may  be  quoted  to  show  the  poverty  of  Ireland  compared 
with  Scotland. 

Ireland       Scotland 

Income  tax  (1915)    £2,182,000     £7,326,000 

Gross  income  (1913) 

houses    5,419,000       21,202,000 

land     9,699,000         5,713,000 

Railway   receipts   (1913)    4,902,000        14,900,000 

Post  office  savings  ( 1913)   13,161,895  8,008,985 

Trustee  savings   (1913)    2,652,018       20,114,443 

1  The  Scottish  figures  do  not  include  1,046,503  persons  under  lo 
years  of  age. 

[  401    1 


2.  The  total  imports  of  Ireland  in  191 3  amounted  to 
^73.673,000.  The  total  exports  amounted  to  £73,886,000. 
As  compared  with  Scotland,  however,  the  direct  commerce 
was  small: 

Ireland       Scotland 

Direct  imports  (19 14)    £14,562,992     £47,837,053 

Direct  exports  (19 1 4)   1,219,812       45,315,063 

3.  The  fisheries  of  Ireland  and  Scotland  may  well  be  com- 
pared to  illustrate  the  backwardness  of  Ireland  in  one  mod- 
ern industry. 

Ireland        Scotland 

Fish  taken  (1913)    33, 820  tons       362,994  tons 

Value   £294,625  £3,723,357 

Sailing  boats  (1914) 5,077  6,051 

Steam  boats 213  i,950 

Net  tonnage    27,882  129,261 

4.  The  Irish  Cooperative  Movement  included  947  societies, 
June  30,  1913.  The  membership  numbered  101,991  and  the 
turnover  was  £3,205,189.  The  total  farm  produce  and  food- 
stuffs imported  into  Ireland  in  191 2  was  valued  at  £20,000,- 
000. 

5.  In  19 12  the  average  weekly  earnings  of  railway  servants 
were  as  follows : 

England  and  Wales, 28s.     od.      (415,197  employed) 

Scotland    24s.     4d.        (47,499  employed) 

Ireland    20s.     9d.        (20,209  employed) 

III.     GOVERNMENT 

I.  The  government  of  Ireland  is  grossly  extravagant. 
The  main  items  in  extravagance  are  the  cost  of  maintaining 
an  imperial  police  force,  an  excessively  expensive  judiciary 
and  a  viceregal  establishment.  These  extravagances  may  be 
surmised  from  the  civil  service  estimates,  1916-17.  Remem- 
bering that  36,000,000  was  the  population  of  England  and 
Wales  in  191 1,  and  4,400,000  the  population  of  Ireland,  the 
comparison  in  judicial  expenses  is  noteworthy.  It  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  say  that  there  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the  crim- 
inal records  of  Ireland  to  account  for  the  figures.     Crime  in 

[  402  ] 


Ireland  is  slightly  greater  than  crime  in  Scotland  since  1910, 
having  been  less  than  crime  in  Scotland  in  the  previous  de- 
cade. 

Ireland 

Supreme  Court £    1 12,570 

Land  Commission 753.9i8 

County  Court 101,284 

Police    1,473,568 

Prisons    110,190 

Reformatories 109,788 

Scotland 

Courts  of  Justice 83,746 

Prisons    100,635 

U.  K.  AND  England 

Supreme  Court 327,416 

County  Courts 1 10, 1 74 

Police,  England  and  Wales 108,282 

Prisons,  England  and  Colonies 680,090 

Reformatories  G.  B 335,384 

Ireland 

Public  education 1,812,704 

Scotland 

Public  education 2,544,742 

2.  For  the  year  ending  March  31,  1915,  the  Irish  services 
cost  £12,656,000  and  the  Scotch  cost  £10,178,000.  But  the 
Scotch  revenue  was  much  greater,  owing  to  the  superior 
wealth  and  superior  taxable  capacity  of  Scotland. 

Net  Revenue                              Ireland  Scotland 

Customs    £3,674,000  £3,919,000 

Excise    3,629,000  5,647,000 

Estate  duties i  ,070,000  4,000,000 

Stamps    323,000  568,000 

Land  tax —  32,000 

House  duty —  129,000 

Income  tax 2,182,000  7,326,000 

Land  value  duties 2,000  62,000 

Postal  service 996,000  1,971,000 

Telegraph  service 195,000  287,000 

[  403  ] 


Net  Revenue                            Ireland  Scotland 

Telephone  service 188,000  673,000 

Crown  lands 19,000  30,500 

Miscellaneous 11 1,500  97>500 

Total £12,389,500  £24,742,000 

3.  The  resources  of  Ireland  are  further  painfully  disclosed 
in  the  figures  of  local  taxation. 

Local  Taxation 

Ireland  Scotland 

Receipts  FROM                                (1912-13)  (1912-13) 

Rates  . . £3,300,828  £7,403,108 

Water  undertakings 345.393  1,145,632 

Gas    429,404  2,311,458 

Electric  light   210,338  717,880 

Tramways,  etc 255,740  1,413,323 

Tolls,  dues,  etc 431,568  1,410,942 

Rents,  etc 327,542  285,313 

Sales  of  property 83,954 

Government  contributions 1,410,073  2,979,095 

Loans    1,602,988  2,181,296 

Misc 489,698  812,041 

Total  receipts £8,803,572  £20,767,568 

Expenditure  by 

Town  and  municipal  authorities  for 
police,  sanitarj'  and  other  public 

works,  etc 3,545,690  10,603,599 

For  poor  relief,  etc 1,318,560  1,736,801 

County  authorities  for  police,  luna- 
tic asylums,  etc 2,332,781  2,216,936 

Rural  and  parish  councils,  etc.  .. .        905,058  21,409 

School  boards  and  secondary  edu- 
cation committees —  4,404,695 

Harbor  authorities 595,323  i,530,523 

Other  authorities 170,663  89,559 

Total  expenditures £8,868,075  £20,603,522 

[  404  ] 


INDEX 


Abbey  Theatre  153,  236 
Absenteeism  see  landlordism 
Acton,  Lord  quoted  97 
A.E.   see  George  W.   Russell 
Against  Home  Rule   162 
Agrarian  outrage  see  landlordism 
Agriculture 

importance  of  77 

handicap  of  railroads   171 

faulty  methods  181 

effect  on  character  235 
Alexinsky,   M.   Gregor  Modern  Rus- 
sia 82,  89 
An  Claidheamh  Soluis  266 
Anglicization  290,   338 
Anglo-Irish   see    ascendency 
Aquinas,  Thomas  376 
Arms,   landing   of   266 

from  Germany  370 
Arnold,    Matthew    Irish    Essays    21, 

78,  290,  358,  sqq 
Ascendency 

aided  from  England  23 

in  government  205 

social  aspect  215 

to  be  uprooted  233 

stumbling  block  353 
Asquith,  26,  265,  268,  273,  328,  368, 
371 

Bacon  quoted   105 

Bagehot  English  Constitution  61,  73 

Bagwell,   Ireland   under   the   Tudors 

227 
Balfour,    Arthur    J.    202,    207,    213, 

225.  248,  346,  348 
Balfour,  Graham  quoted  290,  296 
Bank  of  Ireland   188 
Banking  system  164 
Barbour,  J.  Milne  237 
Barker    Ernest   Ireland   in    the   Last 

Fifty    Years   7$,   195  sqq,   220 
Begbie  Harold  The  Happy  Irish  320 
Beith   "  Ian  Hay  "  352 
Belfast 

labor  cheap  82 
opposition  to  Home  Rule  83 
Chamber  of  Commerce  88 
capitalism  89 


"  a  barbarous  nook  "   103 

contrast  with  Dublin  234 

poverty  257 

Chamber    of    Commerce    and    God 
262 

mediaevalism  360 
see  Ulster 
Bennett,  Arnold  160 
Berkeley,    George   F.-H.   209 
Bissing,   von   quoted    145,   219 
Blindness  statistics  180 
Bombast,  cause  of  Irish  18 
Boutmy,   Emile   The  English  Ptople 

70 
Bright,  John  73,  202,  225,  29 
Brooks,   Sydney  quoted  256 
Browne,   P.   quoted  375 
Bryce,  Lord  289 
Burke,  Edmund 

and  Irish  confiscation  71,  78 

conflict   not   religious   137 

on  persecution  139 
Butt,  Isaac  198 
Butter  industry   166,  181,   183 

Cameron,  Sir  Charles  193,  324 
Canby,  Professor  H.  S.  366 
Canterbury,  Archbishop  on  disestab- 
lishment 62 
Capitalism  in  Ulster  82 

and  Home  Rule  89 

and  Irish  development  188 
Carlyle  quoted  227 
Carson,  Sir  Edward 

a  reactionary  29 

condemns  mercantilism  92 

and   revolution   93 

and  Parnell  245 

leadership  254 

condemns  nationalism  265 

leads  rebellion  263 

estimate  in  1913,  273 

ingenuities  328 

and  privilege  370 
Casement,  Sir  Roger  273,  352 
Casey,  Father  277 
Catholic  see  Roman  Catholic 
Cattle  maiming  95 
Chamberlain,  Austen  162,  1(4,  34$ 


[405] 


Chamberlain,  Joseph  i6o 

Childers      Erskine     Framework     of 

Home  Rule  68,  379,  381 
Christian  Brothers  365 
Clare,  Earl  of  71 
Clarendon,  Lord  148 
Clerical  see  Roman  Catholic 
Coal  167,  170 
Cobden,  Richard  202,  226,  228,  230, 

292 
Coercion   159 
Colonization  of  Ireland 

Machiavellian  policy  67  sqq 

justification  80 

Bacon's  attitude  106 

evils  157 
Commercialism  325 
Commonwealth  of  Nations  217 
Conciliation  and  gratitude  81 

in   Scotland   131 
Confiscation    see   colonization 
Congestion,   relief   of   202 
Connolly,  James  193,  270,  329 
Convention,    Lloyd   George,   in    1917, 

16 
Conscription  and  Home   Rule  24 

a  cause  of  rebellion  274 

failure   345 

see  World  War 
Conservatism    in    Irish    farmer    92, 

234.   267,  375.  382 
Constabulary    see    Royal    Irish    Con- 
stabulary 
Cooperative  Movement   184,  386 

statistics   402 

see    Sir   Horace   Plunkett 
Corcoran,    Rev.    T.,    S.J.,    146 
County   Council   chairmen   215 
Covenant  see  Solemn 
Creameries   184 

Crewe,  Marquess  o£,  202,  344,  348 
Cromwell  69 
"  Curse  of  Ireland  "  65 
Curzon,  Lord,  a  reactionary  29 


Davitt,    Michael,   opinion   of   bishops 

147 
Death  rate  in  Dublin   193 
Degeneracy,  physical,   179,  400 
de   Lavergne,   Leonce    190 
Democracy,    capitalism    affects,    82 

and  Catholicism  282 

economic  basis  336 

and  self-government  384 
Denmark,  Irish  rivalry  with,  171 

farming  methods,   181 

education  a  model  186 
Deputy  Lieutenants  in  1913,  215 
Dicey,  A.  V.  quoted  351 
Dillon,  John  239 
Dirty  Irish  71 


Disestablishment  of  church 

economic    aspect    63 

tithe  war   141 

cause  of,   199 

a  tax  on  landlords  231 

opposition  357 
Distrust    the    keynote   of    Irish   gov- 
ernment 208 
Drink  bill  316 
Drummond,   Thomas    142 
Dublin,  industries  in,   191 

housing   191  sqq 
"Dublin  Castle,"  152,  160,  205,  209, 

369 
Dunraven,  Lord  243,  251,  362 

Economics,  III,  VI,  XII 

and  the  state  30 

"  servitude  "  72 

and  Established  Church  141 

arguments  against  Home  Rule  162 

and  railroads  167 

importance  315 

Sinn  Fein  programme  326 

Parliamentarian   policy    331 

and  democracy  336 
Eddy,  Mary  Baker  19 
Education  288 

a  means  of  proselytizing  146,  288, 
297 

lack  due  to  government  175 

vocational  needs  185 

"  Intermediate  "  238 

deficiency   in  university  287 

character  of,  348 
Elizabeth,    Charlotte,    143  sqq 
Ellenborough,   Lord,   217,   346 
Emerson,  English  Traits  16 
Emigration,  Presbyterian  86 

cause  of,    I73,«qq  . 

and   degradation   228,  J 

amount  of  354  '^ 

statistics  399 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica  22 
English   opinion  of  Irish  20 
Ervine,  St.  John  83,  262 
Established    Church    see    Protestant- 
ism,  Disestablished 
Exports   from   Ireland   74,    149,    162, 
172,  402 

Famine  see  Great  Famine 
Farming  sec  agriculture 
Fenianism  145 
Finance,     report    of    Committee    on 

Irish  257 
Ford,  Henry  Jones,  The  Scotch-Irish 

in  America,    103,    117 
Freeman  quoted  70 
Froude,  J.  A.  quoted  141 
"  Furor  Hibernicus  "   I2t 


[406] 


Gaelic  culture  107,  321,  349 
Gaelic  League  153,  239,  364 
"  Garrison,  The,"  see  ascendency 
George,  David  Lloyd, 

bastard   statesmanship  22 

Ireland  and  the  War  25 

finance  347 

liberalism  369 

deference  to  Ulster  371 
German   methods  in   Ireland  146 
Gill,  T.   P.    187  sqq,  204 
Giraldus   Cambrensis   106 
Germany  and  Ireland  28 
Gladstone  W.   E. 

Morley's  Life  quoted  62 

and  the  Vatican  145 

introduces  Home  Rule  bill  198 

and  Parnell  245 

and  education  290,  292 

and  downfall  of  Parnell  346 
Governmental  bankruptcy   27 

grants   204,   331 

irresponsibility   207,  210 

failure   343 

statistics  of  extravagance  402 
Grattan's   Parliament   92,   224 
Great  Famine  of   1845-9 

cost  in  lives  73 

causes  74  sqq 

John  Mitchel's  account  149 
Gregory,   Lady   250 
Green,    Mrs  John   R.,  Irish  Nation- 
ality 349 
"  Grievances  "  63 

British  recogition   196 

G.  B.  Shav^  and  204 
Griffith,  Arthur  326  sqq 
Gwynn,   Stephen,   quoted  232 

Hallam,  Arthur,  quoted   112 
Hamilton,  Lord  Ernest,  The  Soul  of 

Ulster  80,  106 
Hamlet  35 

Hannay,  Canon,  quoted  216 
Hapgood,  Norman,  quoted  359 
Harrison,  Austen   161 
Healy,  T.  M.  242 
Henry  II   131,  349,  393 
Holmes,     Justice     O.     W.     Common 

Law  15,  16 
Home  Rule 

evasion   by   British   politicians    16, 
346 

agitation  exhausts  Ireland  23 

and  conscription   24 

and  Ulster  28,  90,  355 

and  British  Labor  Party  29 

not  the  goal  32,  351 

opposition  of  Catholic  bishops  147 

cause  of  opposition   164 

introduction   of  policy    198 

failure  of   1886  bill  199 


Redmond's  achievement  244 
settlement  frustrated  247 
substitution  policy  252 
Ulster  rebellion  against   259,   264 
guarantees  to  Ulster  261,  367 
bill  signed  266 
practicability  360 
character  366 
full  measure  378 
fiscal  autonomy  379 
bearing  on  administration  383 
dominion   form   384 
Hyde,  Douglas   133,   153,  272 

Imperial  credit  89 

Imperialism  26,  68,  95,  99,  127,  136, 
195.  217,  343 

Imports  into  Ireland,  162,   171,   187 
statistics  402 

Independence,,  absolute,  351 
objections  352 

India  99 

Industrial  decay   166,  303 

Industries  see  imports,  exports,  Bel- 
fast,  Dublin,  railroads 

Insurrection  see  rebellion 

"  Intermediate  "   see  education 

Irish    Agricultural    Organization    So- 
ciety  181 

Irish    characteristics,    loi,    108,    187, 
23s,   252,   290,  299,   318,  33S 

Irish  Church  Act  201 

Irish  Freedom  267 

Irish   language   109 

Irish  Volunteers  265,  273 

Jamaican  "self-government"  350 
Joyce,  James,  Portrait  of  the  Artist 

239 
Judiciary,  expense  of  211,  402  sqq 
Jung,   Carl,  quoted  392 
Jury  packing  109 

Keating  Geoffrey   133 

Labor,  British  and  Ireland  372 
Labor  cheap  in   Belfast  82,  258 
Labor,  James   Fintan    202 
Lampson,  F.  Locker,  Ireland  in  the 

19th  Century   142,   148 
Land  tenure  75 
Landlordism 

struggle  to  overthrow  61 

and   famine   74 

downfall   75  sqq 

absenteeism  77,  227 

cost  of  77 

and  boycott   97,  249 

abolition   200  sqq 

and   nationalism  231 

social  aspects  233 


[407] 


and  Stage  Irishman  33s 
change  toward  Home   Rule  362 

Land  war   in   Ulster   86 

Langrishe,   Sir   Hercules   139 

Laski,   H.  J.  Authority  in  the  Mod- 
ern State  31 

Lecky  83  sqq,    117,   251 

Lilley,  Canon  A.  L.   262 

List,  Frederick  326 

Lloyd  George  and  the  War  29 

Local  government  act  203 

Local   self-government   364 

Lodge,   Henry  Cabot   :6 

Londonderry,  Lord  256,  3SS,  366 

Long  Walter  H.,  370 

Lowell,   A.    Lawrence   160,  382,  383 

Lowell  James  Russell  94 

Lunacy  statistics   179 

Lynd,  Robert  262 

MacDonagh,  Thomas   270,   273 
Machiavelli 

the  godfather  of  Ulster  66 

The  Prince  quoted   66 

misapplied   72 
Macneill,   Professor  John  265,  266 
Mahan,  Admiral  quoted  218,  360 
Marriage  rate  400 
Martin,  Miss  Violet,  Irish  Memories 

230,  299 
Maynooth    143,  292 
Meredith,  George  82,   155,  236 
Milk   184 

Milner,  Lord  a  reactionary  29,  346 
Milton,  John   102  sqq,   329 
Mitchel,  John,  Jail  Journal 

Irish  bombast    18 

English   delinquencies   94 

account  of  Great   Famine  149 

on  opportunism  261 

and  democracy  329 

and  Daniel  O'Connell  374 
Moore,  George   158 
Moore,   George   Henry   201 
Morley,  Lord,  61 

Established   Church  62 

"  the   citadel   of  privilege  "   63 

and  jury  packing   109 

Recollections   198 

Gladstone   198 

English   irresponsibility  207,  210 

and   magistracy  212 

on  O'Connell  226 

Recollections  299 

on  Ulster  365 

on  reform   391 
Mount  Melleray  305 
Murphy  W.  M.  93,  193 

Napier,  Sir  Charles,  quoted  345 
National   schools   147,  348 
see  education 


National   University  294 

see   education 
National   Volunteers  265 
Nationalism  during  war  time  24,  121 

need  for  124,  222 

development  of   154 

Sir  Edward  Carson  and  Irish  263 

clerical  aspect  281 

spirit  of   348 

nature  of  386 
Nationalization  of  railroads  see  rail- 
roads 
Newman,   Cardinal  293 
New  Reptiblic  quoted  26,  241 
New  Tipperary  356 
Noyes,  Alfred  352 

O'Brien  William  102,  242 
O'Connell,   Daniel 

and  Catholic  emancipation   140 

and  Catholic  hierarchy   145 

a  Catholic  leader  224 

Morley's  estimate  226 

against  revolution   273 

defeated  by  economics  323 

divided   allegiance  374 
Occupations 

Ireland  and  Scotland  401 
Old  Age  Pensions  180,  379 
Oppenheimer,      Franz,      The      State 

1 10  sqq 
Orangemen  27 
Orange   Society  founded  87 
Overtaxation  380 

Palmerston,  Lord  148 

Parable   37-59 

Parliamentary    policy    2^,    199,    239, 

331 
Parnell 

integrates  parliamentary  policy  23 

and  Constitutionalism  28 

priests     boycott     testimonial     145, 
150 

fight  for  Home  Rule   198 

hatred  of  England  225 

a  fighting  leader  243  sqq 

individualism   330 

ultimate  goal  351 
Paul-Dubois,  L.  375 
Pauperism,     Ireland     and     Scotland 

180 
Pearse,  P.  H.  270,  321,  375 
Peasant  Proprietorship  336 
Peel,    Sir   Robert   145 
Penal  Laws   137,  i39>  277 
Percy,  Earl,  quoted  218,   346 
Perraud,  Cardinal,  quoted  66 
Petty,   Sir  Wm.,  quoted  227 
Phillipines   13,   353 
Pirrie.  Lord   167 
Pitt  purchases  Union  92 


[408] 


Pius  X  282 

"  Plantations  "   see  colonization 
Playboy  of  the   Western   World,  230 
Plunkett,   Sir   Horace 

disparages  Irish    iio 

antagonizes  prelacy    154 

on   Irish   history   158 

leadership    184 

and  Dept.  of  Agriculture  203 

a   Unionist  243 

Ireland   in   the  New   Century   251 

criticizes   Catholic    Irishmen   285 

Ireland  an  entity  334 

advocates  cooperation   337 
Plunkett,   Joseph   270 
Pole-Carew,   Sir  Reginald   234,   248 
Police  see   Royal  Irish  Constabulary 
Poole,   Ernest  33 

Population,   Fall   in,   statistics,   399 
Poverty  72,  73,  322,  339,  401 

see   Degeneracy,    Economics,    Fam- 
ine,  Pauperism 
Poyning's  Act   104 
Presbyterianism    and    Republicanism 
83  sqq 

attitude  toward  Catholics  84 

opposition   to   Home   Rule   261 
see  Belfast,  Solemn  League,  Ul- 
ster 
"  Priest-ridden  "   129 
Prosperity  in  Ulster  91 

see  Ulster 
Protestant  leaders  224 
Protestantism  and  privilege  62 

toward    Republicanism   85 

"  The  Garrison  "   140 

tithe  war  141 

fear  of  Catholicism  364 

see   Colonization,    disestablished, 
established 

Quarterly   Review   108 

Railroad   control   164,    165 

Irish  Railways  Commission  165 

nationalization   169,  389 
Raiineis,   18 

Ratcliffe   S.   K.  quoted  371 
Rebellion  of   1641,  69 

of   1798,  87 

of  1 916,  royal    commission    report 
108 

common  characteristics  109 

of  1916,  126,  127,  230,  267 

of  Ulster  258,  259 

starts  new  era  376,  378 
Reconstruction    dependent    on    state- 
hood 30 
Redmond  J.   E. 

and  the  war  27 

and  the  separatists  28 

"  municipal  "    240  sqq 

and  Sir  H.  Plunkett  253 


helps  recruiting  265 

belittles  rebellion   268 

accepts    partial    Home    Rule   369 
Religious  clashes  60 

dilterences  in   Ulster  79,  262 

historical  background   131 

economic  aspects   140 

discrimination  214 

liberties  355 

statistics  for  Ulster  400 

statistics   for  all   Ireland   400 
"  Returned  American  "  309 
Revolution  not  progress  376 

see  rebellion 
Ribblesdale,   Lord   239 
Roman   Catholic 

attitude   toward   republicanism,   85 

fight  Protestants  87 

Emancipation    140 

hierarchy  and  government  144 

control  of  education   147,  291 

magistracy  212 

disabilities   222 

clerical   objections  to  Home   Rule, 
234 

clerical  power  276  sqq 

authority  and  the  state  282 

antidemocratic  aspect  283 

and  industry  319 
Ross,  Bishop  of  189,  318  sqq 
Round  Table  217,  378 
Royal    Irish    Constabulary    108,    211, 

220 
Russell  George  W.   (A.E.)  250,  251, 

272,  302,  313,  339 
Russell,  Lord  John  72 

Sabotage,  cattle-maiming  as,  95 
Scotland      and      Ireland     contrasted 

129  sqq 
Scott,   Sir  Walter  quoted  227 
Sectarianism    138 

in  the  schools   147 

subsidence  297 
Self-government 

for  Philippines   13 

Irish   not  fit  20 

lack  during  famine  74 

main  reason   for  206 

"  all  round  "  347 

for  Ulster  361 
Separatism   351 
Sexton,  Thomas   167 
Shaw,   G.   B.   John  Bull's   Other  Is- 
land,  64,    133,    is8,    161,   204 
Sinclair  Thomas  256,  35s,  362 
Sinn  Fein  origin   24 

movement  243,  246 

rebellion   269  sqq 

economic  policy  326 
Sinn  Fein  quoted  266 
Smith,   Goldwin   148,  226 


[409] 


Solemn    League    and    Covenant    248, 

Somerville  and  Ross  see  Violet  Mar- 
tin 
Spectator  108 
Starkie  W.  J.  295 
State  a  fagade  30 
State  aid  204,  331 
Statistics 

emigration   177,  399 

lunacy  179,  400 

blindness   180,  400 

old  age  pensions  180 

pauperism    180 

occupations  191,  401 

housing    192 

mortality    193 

trade  327 

population  399 

religions  400 

wealth  401,  403 

budget   403 
Stevenson,  R.  L.  96 
Studies,  quoted   74 

Thoreau,    Walden  228  sqq,   325 

Tithe  war,   141 

Tone,  Wolfe  217 

Trade,   Irish   share  of  British   327 

Trade  Unionists  against  Home  Rule 

90 
Trinity   College,   Dublin   288 
Trotzky  344 

Ulster  problem  evaded  28 
a  vested  interest  79 
history  80 
capitalism  in,  82 
once  hotbed  of  republicanism  82 
loyalty  86 

land  war  of   1770,   86 
prosperity  91 

particularism  92,   342,   361 
economic  clue  98 
Presbytery   in   1649,   102 
colonization    106 

Solemn  League  and  Covenant  248, 
359 


stimulates  rebellion  259 

Volunteers  265 

manufacturer  quoted  333 

industrialism  354 

and  Prussianism  357 

dog  in  the  manger  360 

and  Home  Rule  367 

and  "  Dublin  Castle  "  369 

economics  under  Home  Rule  381 

conquest  of  Ireland  383 

nationalism   387 
Ultramontanism   154 
"  Undertakers  "  86 
Unionism  and  capital  83,   188 

Progressive  element  251 

see   Protestantism,   Ulster 

United  Irish  League  213,  332,  ^$6 

United   Irish    Society,   formation   84 

University  education  see  education 


Vatican  decree,   191 1,  282 
Veblen,   Thorstein    Nature  of  Peace 
93,  31 S  sqq 


Wages  72 

in    Dublin    193 

in   Belfast  258 

in   U.   K.  402 
Waldron,    Lawrence    188 
Wallas  Graham  207,  262 
War  see  World  War 
Waterford,   Lady   299 
Wellington,   Duke  of,   140,   157 
Whitman,  Walt  11 
William    of   Orange    138 
Wilson,   Woodrow 

on   Philippines   13 

on   Mex  CO  ^3 

"  economic  servitude  "  72 

on   imperialism    128 
Woman   suffrage  28,  200 
Workhouses  73 
World   War   revives   nationalism   24 

Irish  response  25 

anticipated  by  Englishmen  218 

tests  reality  of   Union  344 


T4IO] 


DATE  DUE 


JAN  18 

198S' 

.    ^ 

MAY  ^4    Ir^. 

' 

DEC  12  2 

DOS 

1 

\> 

CAVLOBO 

CR(MTEO  IN  U.S.A. 

BOSTON  COLLEGE 


3  9031    01582104  4 


41 00  8 


^A 


